Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'part count'.

The search index is currently processing. Current results may not be complete.
  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • Welcome Aboard
  • Kerbal Space Program 1
    • KSP1 Discussion
    • KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
    • KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP1 Mission Reports
    • KSP1 Gameplay and Technical Support
    • KSP1 Mods
    • KSP1 Expansions
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP2 Dev Updates
    • KSP2 Discussion
    • KSP2 Suggestions and Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission Ideas
    • The KSP2 Spacecraft Exchange
    • Mission Reports
    • KSP2 Prelaunch Archive
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Gameplay & Technical Support
    • KSP2 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Mods
    • KSP2 Mod Discussions
    • KSP2 Mod Releases
    • KSP2 Mod Development
  • Community
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
    • KSP Fan Works
  • International
    • International

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Twitter


About me


Location


Interests

Found 3 results

  1. So this is not a new question; I've seen many other posts on the same general topic. The previous one with this exact title was a bit outdated, though, so I thought I'd open a new one. The question is: what can you do to improve performance of your game (outside of bying new computing kit). More specifically: what can you do to improve performance around space stations. The reason I ask is I've been having inconsistent results with my station designs. I've had massively big stations, 500+ parts, with reasonable (given the total part count of station, docking and approaching vessels) though not stunning performance: And then I've had this tiny station ... : (Modlist for above spacestation: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vajct196DKoGFBZJ_YWFe_QXjAEuXLRe/view?usp=sharing) ... which sports an entirely reasonable 200 parts (including a few docked tugs) but drops my framerate down to single digits per second - and I didn't even try to make the rings rotate (the rings were just a convenient shape for getting stuff to orbit). So obviously, it's not just the part count, but the type of parts that matter. Some guesses as to what type of parts have the potential to affect framerate: Solar panels: they have to keep track of the orientation of the station relative to the Sun and, if they're the tracking type, adjust their angle. Docking ports: they may be scanning for nearby targets and adjust their behaviour accordingly. (Though the first pic shows a station with massive numbers of docking ports that nevertheless performed way better than the one in the second pic...) The USI Kolonization mod I'm using probably recalculates the current life support status of habitation modules every other. In the above stations I cheated by using the UbioZur Welding mod to reduce part count, by welding most continuous 'inactive' parts together (like adjacent crew cabins, girders or fuel tanks). Now theoretically this should reduce the load and therefore improve framerate. But I'm not a coder; I have no idea how the code for this mod works or how the code of the game proper has evolved since this mod was first developed. It may be that it's not just about the actual parts, but about the modules inside those parts, which aren't welded - I presume. So, mods installed, type and number of parts ... what else affects framerate? Can I - can we - come to some kind of consistent set of guidelines for constructing stations big enough to be worth having that don't cause you to grind your teeth at every docking manoeuvre? What parts to avoid, how to avoid them; what mods to install, and which mods not to ... I'd love to hear your advice and your experiences. Thanks! EDIT: Another thing, I forgot, that may have impact: settings. Like the max DT per frame spent on physics calculations. The Max DT was lower with the top station than with the one below, but I've been told that bigger is better in this case. Soit, I'll have to experiment with this a little. SUMMARY TO DATE: Limit the number of docking ports. Docking ports, especially unshielded ones, scan the environment for partners to mate with, which puts extra load on the CPU. Also, if you limit the number of docking ports, you'll be limiting the number of craft that are docked at any given time, which limits total part count. Limit the number of solar panels. All solar panels, not just the ones that actively track the sun, need to be able to calculate their position and attitude relative to the sun, and whether or not any obstacles are present between them and the sun. Limit the potential for fuel crossfeed. Modularize your station: all fuel (or presumably consumables of any given kind) in one section. See Starman4308's mention of Stratenblitz's video here. Following AlpacaMall's suggestion: limit the number of lights. I haven't had this problem myself, but I can see how lights might require CPU intensive calculations. And of course, try to limit the overall number of parts. Mods like UbioZur's Welding mod my help here, or things like the various Station Parts modules I occasionally see mentioned. Sure, you can build grandiose stations just for the kick of it; try and match Stratenblitz's Kerbol 0 if you dare. But if you're looking for something to use as a staging area and (re)fuelling post for forays into the system, then Simpler Is Better (which is what gave me the initial idea for the station in the first pic in this post: basically just a bunch of girders, docking ports and fuel tanks).
  2. Dear Forumites, I'm posting this question as I did not find any references to these topics. Basically: 1. Any idea if the Devs plan to allow multiple simultaneous vessels with active physics in different parts of the solar system? 2. What method would be used to simulate physics on ship parts? Will each be simulated independently (As in KSP1 which causes lag after a certain number is reached). Or after the ship is build, the physics will be rendered for just that ship, and all other attached parts will be graphically rendered but with different graphical destruction reactions and still be a part of just one unit. If these questions have not been asked/answered in the past or can't be answered yet, no stress, I understand! Thank you for any information.
  3. Due to an ongoing strike in the "hammers and welders guild" over conditions in the SPH/VAB (something about trucks constantly driving in a reckless manner through the workshop, apparently), the KSC has called for mission proposals which requires the fewest number of parts to be joined together. Two missions are planned: to Minmus, and Laythe. Both must be manned by at least one Kerbal, and both require surface samples (or in the case of Laythe a proven ocean sample may be substituted if desired) to be returned to the lab for testing. You are invited to submit your simulated mission results for one/both targets. Rules: Stock (+DLC) only parts please No physics abuse (including ladder/Kraken/drain valve drives) or excessive part clipping Mission must deliver a Kerbal from Kerbin to the target surface and back to Kerbin Number of parts is as defined in the VAB There will be a leaderboard for each mission, ranked by number of parts used. In case of ties, the lowest (launch) mass solution will take precedence. Per the official requirements for submitting, here is where a minimum of 42 parts has already been proven...
×
×
  • Create New...