Jump to content

Windows 64 bit community workaround

WWEdeadman

By WWEdeadman
in KSP1 Tutorials

 Share

Recommended Posts

Speadge

Speadge

Posted
Posted (edited)

so i was very excited reading this.

after testing now, i run in serious problems on every 2nd scene change as it is just not loading space and the ship.

I do see the UI, music playing - but thats it. Cant even exit to main menu and have to kill the process.

that happens with 5 minutes gameplay and ~4.5gb ram usage

any ideas?

Edit: seems that happens after each 'switch to' in mapscreen

Sometimes.e I am able to get back to space center, but entering the trackingstation then breaks the game. I see the space management around kerbin with my vessels, but can't do anything. Not select or even go back to space center.

Debug screen throws tons of exceptions...(null reference exception)

[EXC 14:45:16.638] NullReferenceException

UnityEngine.Component.get_gameObject ()

MapView.OnDestroy ()

[EXC 14:45:16.311] NullReferenceException

UnityEngine.Transform.get_rotation ()

IVASun.LateUpdate ()

[EXC 14:45:16.042] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object

VesselAutopilotUI.LateUpdate ()

BTW. Tac is working here. Has a detection to 64 bit, which can be seen in ksp.log

Edited by Speadge
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yafeshan

yafeshan

Posted
Posted

@ferram4

Thanks for coming down here and clarifying your reasons. I did not know people blamed modders for the unstability of of 64bit. Its truly unfair. But, what we have now withn 64bit workaround is the only thing we can enjoy with lots of mods. It works for some, fails for some. We know it is not ideal but it offers better gaming experience than standard 32bit, at least for someof us. I wish I had the skills to play with source codes of those mods you mentinoned and make them work here but I dont have. The only thing I have is the knowledge that this one works for me. This works for lots of us.

I love your mods, I do not start new careers without your mod updates for new versions. Believe me, when I had to abandon your aerospace mod, It was a very hard decision for me. I feel like cheating when I launch vessels without Far. I understand something inherently wrong about game itself when it goes above 4gb ram. We just have to wait for squad to solve problem. Also, I do not expect for you to try adapt your mod for this 64bit workaround. Its not your job to fix failures of game devs. What I want from you is an understanding, all of us try to enjoy the game, try to do with what we have. Here, you do not have to bash some ignorant fools who accused modders for failings of 64bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheRag

TheRag

Posted
Posted

@Ferram4

All points aside the 64x unfixer. It has worked for me and some others.

The 64 bit HAS noticeably gotten better, many of us have receive minor bugs with the base game. Practically speaking, many of us that do run mods have been more stable than 32 bit, because we are not get memory crash errors. Most of us here, wouldn't have bother with 64 bit if KSP had a proper LOD system, or that 64 bit was same as. However, it doesn't, and seeing the last 18 pages of posts, that calling 64 bit unstable is unfair, we simply do not know at this time whether or its stable or not, and what mods break under 64x. We expected problems with mods that blocked 64x, to be honest, procedural parts was something we did not expect, however a vast majority of other mods work absolutely fine on 64 bit, even large scale TC mods such as RO and RSS. Most of the problems in the beginning with 1.0.2 64x bit were people installing the wrong mono file.

While we appreciate for you coming down here for your opinions, it would carry more weight if you actually tried 64x bit yourself. Completely risk free, if you don't like it, fine. But, please do not come to conclusion based that 64 bit is unstable without bothering to try it yourself, will there be bugs, yes. Will FAR/KJR/RC/DRE/PP work, hard to say, because there is a tertafecta of reasons, 64x bit, the mods themselves, or bad installation. We need more evidence other than a couple of mods having inconclusive problems definitively to say KSP 64x bit is unstable.

Would I like 32bit, definitely. But given my and most of the other people here circumstances, with every update the room for mods on the 32x has gotten smaller. We've know the dangers of 64x bit, it is on the OP, and because it is unsupported. Anyone that came here knows something can happen to their games that could cause irreparable damage, but we have not had a single case so here or on the second forum for 64x KSP, most problems are resolved by removing certain mods, we are not saying that is the mods' fault, we are just making an observation, and passing our results off to people that use 64 bit and on the fence on using 64x bit.

Make of this as you will, but please do not come to invalidate all the work that has been done here, because a couple of mods that do not work. We are not demanding 64x bit be placed back into official KSP, if anything this shows the potential of 64 bit on Unity 5 and as a quite reliable fix to the memory problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scavenger

scavenger

Posted
Posted (edited)

question: how do i download the UnitySetup-4.6.x.exe without having a crash during the decompression? Installer always says the data are corrupt... I'm trying to download it with one thread only with downloadThemAll but it's hell longer

forget this one, I just opened the buggy installers with 7zip. Btw, what to think about an engine that has installer that just doesn't even work...

question: did anybody tried another verion like 4.6.6? I'm gonna try anyway

btw I'm gonna try it since i'm sick of having to exit when I see the fatal 3,500MB system RAM used on screen to avoid crashes... i can only do like 5-6 switches between VAB/SPH and runway. Each switch makes the game lose 110MB. This is what I call a LEAK.

thanks

Edited by scavenger
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ferram4

ferram4

Posted
Posted
@Ferram4

All points aside the 64x unfixer. It has worked for me and some others.

Now see, that makes sense. This also lends credence to my point that the win64 hack is unstable if issues still occur.

The 64 bit HAS noticeably gotten better, many of us have receive minor bugs with the base game. Practically speaking, many of us that do run mods have been more stable than 32 bit, because we are not get memory crash errors.

Funny, I've always gotten memory crash errors more easily with win64 than with win32, despite the crashes occurring at a lower memory usage. Very stable.

Most of us here, wouldn't have bother with 64 bit if KSP had a proper LOD system, or that 64 bit was same as. However, it doesn't, and seeing the last 18 pages of posts, that calling 64 bit unstable is unfair, we simply do not know at this time whether or its stable or not, and what mods break under 64x. We expected problems with mods that blocked 64x, to be honest, procedural parts was something we did not expect, however a vast majority of other mods work absolutely fine on 64 bit, even large scale TC mods such as RO and RSS. Most of the problems in the beginning with 1.0.2 64x bit were people installing the wrong mono file.

Considering what I've seen, trying to play it off as if it might be stable is really, really pushing it. All of the indications are that it isn't, but that you would really rather not admit that because it gets in the way of what you want.

While we appreciate for you coming down here for your opinions, it would carry more weight if you actually tried 64x bit yourself. Completely risk free, if you don't like it, fine. But, please do not come to conclusion based that 64 bit is unstable without bothering to try it yourself, will there be bugs, yes.

I have, it seems just as unstable as before. I'm sure this is the point where you tell me that I obviously did something wrong, because, after all, if I did everything correct, that gets in the way of what you want.

Will FAR/KJR/RC/DRE/PP work, hard to say, because there is a tertafecta of reasons, 64x bit, the mods themselves, or bad installation. We need more evidence other than a couple of mods having inconclusive problems definitively to say KSP 64x bit is unstable.

See, this is the kind of garbage that makes me hate everything to do with win64. The code for mods doesn't change between x86 and x64; it doesn't need to, if it did, then all the Linux 64 builds would have had so many problems despite the fact that they never have. This is the same exact garbage that came up before with the 0.23.5 win64 hack; "oh, of course it's not the win64 build being unstable, it must be the mods." This has all happened before, and it is all happening again; don't take me for a fool and think you can play this off as something different, because I've already seen exactly how this mess goes.

Anyone that came here knows something can happen to their games that could cause irreparable damage, but we have not had a single case so here or on the second forum for 64x KSP

There have never been any recorded cases of irreparable damage, but good job trying to downplay all the other issues by comparison. I see what you're doing.

most problems are resolved by removing certain mods, we are not saying that is the mods' fault, we are just making an observation, and passing our results off to people that use 64 bit and on the fence on using 64x bit.

Of course it's not the mod's fault! Why would it be, we're just implying that it is... we'd never say it out loud, no, that makes people very upset. At least be honest and blame me to my face. Have some honor with the accusations you throw around; stand behind them, don't run and try to say that you're not blaming any of us modders, because you are. You did before, you're doing it now, nothing has changed.

Make of this as you will, but please do not come to invalidate all the work that has been done here, because a couple of mods that do not work.

^^See? It's totally not win64's fault, must be the mods.

We are not demanding 64x bit be placed back into official KSP, if anything this shows the potential of 64 bit on Unity 5 and as a quite reliable fix to the memory problem.

"We are not demanding official win64 builds of KSP, but here are some reasons for why we should have win64 builds of KSP, and look how stable it is! Why did Squad pull the builds when it's so stable now, obviously all the problems are just with the mods!"

>_> Do you really take me for such a fool? This is the exact same thing that has happened before, with the same exact blaming of mods and modders (but we're not, we swear!) and the same exact downplaying of any stability issues. The only difference is now, in addition to convincing Squad to bring official win64 builds back, you need to convince modders to unlock their mods.

I would like to think that having a stable win64 build would be nice. But given the behavior in this thread, and of the community at large when faced with win64 issues (to blame mods and modders for it), combined with the continued issues that I've seen and heard about, an official win64 build of KSP would be a greater disaster than the 0.24 win64 release or the 0.25 win64 mod locking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scavenger

scavenger

Posted
Posted (edited)

I tried 4.6.6 it doesn't launch the game, OK

I tried 4.6.4 and ... WOW wonderfull thank you so much guys, no crashes anymore after 3,700MB, and at least I can play with DX11!! I went up to 6GB without any lag and played for 2 hours without ANY crash!!!

it is as stable as the stock version, the crashes due to maximum memory let alone.

and i use all these mods:

ActiveTextureManagement
BoulderCo
CapCom
Chatterer
CoherentContracts
CollisionFX
CommunityResourcePack
ContractConfigurator
ContractPacks
ContractsWindow
DistantObject
EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements
Firespitter
GCMonitor
HaystackContinued
KerbalEngineer
KerbalFlightData
Kopernicus
KronalUtils
MechJeb2
MechJebAndEngineerForAll
ModularFlightIntegrator
ModuleManager.2.6.5.dll
NavyFish
OPM
PlanetShine
PreciseNode
Ravien
RcsSounds
RealChute
scatterer
ScienceAlert
Squad
StageRecovery
StockBugFixModules
TCShipInfo
TemperatureGaugeKiller
Trajectories
TriggerTech
WaypointManager

THANK YOU GUYS THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

Edited by scavenger
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheRag

TheRag

Posted
Posted

@Ferram4

Seriously? Allow me to explain a little more carefully. Hopefully we can reconcile the differences

What par-takes here is that.

1. The definition of unstable is that the inherent core game-play, the essence of the game cannot run with major malfunction, dubious reliability, repeated crashing and concurrent testing and experimentation, 64 bit in previous versions have fufilled those requirements. However in 64 bit in 1.0.x This forum has not found anything that has caused major crashing, or unplayability. However, conceding the point that 64x can be GLITCHY, we know this, we have known this, and we will always will know this. Believe me, I didn't want to run 64x bit in KSP, I heard the countless horrors that people have told, but after dozens of hours of causal playing, I feel that 64x is just now glitchy. Do I know how 64x bit is more stable, no, but have I seen an improvement to say the least? Certainly, there is nothing wrong with improvement, even if its all for naught. But in the case that you are right, that 64x bit hasn't improved, that's fine, little is lost.

2. Until you've tried 64x bit yourself, to much of your distaste, I'm afraid that you point doesn't hold much water, against the consistent "Hey, I've running +4GB for X amount of hours and no crashes", you gonna need more evidence to refute those claims, at the best.

3. Browsing your FAR forum today, congratulations on the new release for FAR or "Froude" as you call it, said to fix a lot bugs of the mod. Wonder how many were supposedly fix in the 64x version. Personally, I used FAR before on .25 and .90 it is a great mod, certainly. If it was But with 1.0 aero despite all of its infamy has proven well for me. I don't want FAR, but someone else might want, and here at the 64x community workaround thread we share and discuss problems and sometimes brag, so if someone needs help we, as in, the 64x bit community will gladly give our support, how inconclusive it might be. So no need to get your teapot all fired up.

4.Hmm, seeming does not translate into seeing, much rarely into knowing. I see that something isn't getting through, if your mods don't work on 64x bit, that isn't your problem. It is my problem now or whoever wants to use your mod. No seriously, if it helps, 100% of all the bugs are completely are fault for using the hack, we get use higher ram limits in trade for potential instability supposedly and no support whatsoever beside own little community, that is what many people call a compromise, I am happy and others to accept that compromise.

5. Great point, quite hard to argue actually. But "One man's garbage, is another man's treasure" for me, all the coding stuff is beyond me unfortunate a side from simple config changes. Instead, my policy is simple with 64x bit and mods, if its considered "broken", which would classify all attempts of using said mod are denied/unplayablity, that means absolutely nothing to said mod, that does mean in unfortunately the mod is unavailable in 64x bit, but you can stigmatize 64x bit all you want, until we get some real answers/crashes it wouldn't be the end of the world if we lose some mods, just tricks of the trade, I suggest. Is it great, well that is one's one call on that.

6.

I stand by what I said, none of this your fault, just so happens that your mod as come (yet again) under the 64x microscope, and you want to come to defend it, no problem. But do know there is always a chance that we might find a real bug in your or any other mod in 64 bit, but none of that means anything if you creators aren't supporting it 64 bit. Consequently we are not asking for help with 64 bit, we are at least smart enough to try to reproduce the bug on 32 bit before reporting a bug. Anyone else either doesn't know better, or is laying their cards down. However, I'd like to read what you said.

"Of course it's not the mod's fault! Why would it be, we're just implying that it is... we'd never say it out loud, no, that makes people very upset. At least be honest and blame me to my face. Have some honor with the accusations you throw around; stand behind them, don't run and try to say that you're not blaming any of us modders, because you are. You did before, you're doing it now, nothing has changed."

Is this healthy community behaviour? Seriously I respect you as mod author, and generally think you are up there in list. But these types of passive attacks aren't really helping to change minds it kinda looks like your blaming us from the looks of it for blaming you, because we are not blaming you, but we are bla...see what I mean?

7.

I knew full reason why SQUAD took 64bit out, they are a company, they have to aggregate risk vs reward. It is was a near instinct reaction and quite expected reaction for them to take out 64x bit, because they couldn't risk it, if 64x bit would have been a bat outta hell it would have huge stain on the game, could have angered Sony, could have gotten slammed by steam reviews, could have generated bad gamer's press. With the point I don't think you have business dealings with multi-billion corporations, and if you do, congrats for getting up that high on the social ladder. More to the point. they probably didn't have liberty to outright test it, and if they did, chances based on gut reaction they would have still taken out. Then again 64x hopefully will come with Unity 5, then hopefully we have wouldn't to resort this this hack, well technically it isn't hack, it just replacing files and renaming stuff, guess hack is the coin term.

But I am not SQUAD, so I had the full choice to install an 8GB game engine to get the files needed to run 64x bit. But really Ferram, is SQUAD going browse this thread and magically say, "Oh, yes finally, the community 64x has done it again! Might as well release" if so, their game, nothing we can do about it. But all of reality would point to SQUAD is working on the real 64x if at all and that might settle this frivolous issue.

So if you like to continue this debate, just PM me, there is no need for this to continue, it is what I call a "Unstoppable Force meets an Immovable Object" debate, neither of us can definitively prove our side is wrong, but I am willing to continue if you need to vent more about 64 bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sarbian

sarbian

Posted
Posted (edited)
The 64 bit HAS noticeably gotten better

I will reply to that since I have done some test with the "workaround". Yes, it is stable and allow to push memory limit to the roof. BUT, and it is a big one for mods (and stock), the engine does not fire some events. It may seems like a minor issue but it means that the game is not aware that some things took place (hello building upgrade) and some mod may not initialize or react properly. For stock it may just be a few minor problems but for mod it can be far more reaching and insidious. You could end up with some numbers of a mod not refreshing properly and things being odd without any noticeable error spam.

If you know that it can occurs and don't go bothering the mods author it is fine. But as we saw countless time before this is not obvious to everyone.

If you want the mods to work build them yourselves. It s more complex than launching an exe that edits all the dll in your install and mess up some of them, but it works and is not that hard to learn. And don't reply to us like we don't want this to work.

And stop the conspiracy theory... Ferram4 did not fix any 64bit bugs in his mod because there is none.

Edited by sarbian
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ferram4

ferram4

Posted
Posted
@Ferram4

Seriously? Allow me to explain a little more carefully. Hopefully we can reconcile the differences

Probably not, but let's try, shall we?

What par-takes here is that.

1. The definition of unstable is that the inherent core game-play, the essence of the game cannot run with major malfunction, dubious reliability, repeated crashing and concurrent testing and experimentation, 64 bit in previous versions have fufilled those requirements.

As does the current hack from my experience. So you agree, it's unstable then?

However, conceding the point that 64x can be GLITCHY, we know this, we have known this, and we will always will know this. Believe me, I didn't want to run 64x bit in KSP, I heard the countless horrors that people have told, but after dozens of hours of causal playing, I feel that 64x is just now glitchy.

And this, combined with what I have seen myself, makes me think everyone talking about it being more stable is just lying in hope that there are better chances of it being fixed / made official again if they lie. Seriously, repeated crashes are just glitchy? Do you really expect me to believe that?

2. Until you've tried 64x bit yourself, to much of your distaste, I'm afraid that you point doesn't hold much water, against the consistent "Hey, I've running +4GB for X amount of hours and no crashes", you gonna need more evidence to refute those claims, at the best.

I have. What did you think I based my experience on? It crashes about as much as it did before, in the same circumstances. Maybe a little higher memory usage, but it's still a broken hunk of junk.

3. Browsing your FAR forum today, congratulations on the new release for FAR or "Froude" as you call it, said to fix a lot bugs of the mod. Wonder how many were supposedly fix in the 64x version.

If your argument is that any of those bugs were to fix win64-specific bugs, well, that's funny. I can't exactly fix random crashes in Unity itself, and I couldn't really keep the game running long enough in win64 to achieve anything besides frustration. All the issues existed in all KSP builds (because, remember, the code is identical regardless of word size or OS), and were reproduced in win32 builds.

4.Hmm, seeming does not translate into seeing, much rarely into knowing. I see that something isn't getting through, if your mods don't work on 64x bit, that isn't your problem. It is my problem now or whoever wants to use your mod. No seriously, if it helps, 100% of all the bugs are completely are fault for using the hack, we get use higher ram limits in trade for potential instability supposedly and no support whatsoever beside own little community, that is what many people call a compromise, I am happy and others to accept that compromise.

Yes, and none of this fixes the people who'll come into my thread and bury good bug reports with their whining, or the people who will replace good common support knowledge among the userbase with poor common support knowledge because they're fighting with a monster, and all of the arguments that I can ignore it just because it's a hack are bunk because we all know your goal is to get the official win64 version back. And we all remember how bad things got when that was out, right?

...but you can stigmatize 64x bit all you want, until we get some real answers/crashes it wouldn't be the end of the world if we lose some mods, just tricks of the trade, I suggest. Is it great, well that is one's one call on that.

At a certain point, I think you need to acknowledge that win64 is unstable and stop acting like it's perfectly fine but for a few mods. Win64 is broken as all hell and crashes without warning. Has with the first hack, has with the official versions, has with the current hack, will probably do it with whatever comes out next. Fundamentally, nothing has changed.

6.

I stand by what I said, none of this your fault, just so happens that your mod as come (yet again) under the 64x microscope, and you want to come to defend it, no problem. But do know there is always a chance that we might find a real bug in your or any other mod in 64 bit, but none of that means anything if you creators aren't supporting it 64 bit.

Except, as already noted, the people who don't listen to that and don't care and the unintended consequences in the common thought processes of the community, and the eventual added crap from when Squad finally caves again and pushes out another busted win64 build. I think you have failed to realize that the issue is not with the mods, or the modders; it is with users that don't understand, "not supported" (did you not think that we tried that before locking the mods?) and then turn every single mod thread into a win64 argument. There are more consequences to this than just whether you get to play with an official version of broken win64 KSP. Look up how things went before. See how bad things got. Hell, look at the unfixer; that was Cerebrate's runaround around stupid_chris's win64 locking and license restrictions, all because stupid_chris just wanted to not deal with win64 reports from his userbase. Turns out, that's unacceptable, because he still got tons of bug reports from that.

The fact that you think declaring that modders don't support win64 is the end of it basically proves that you don't have any concept of how things go once the broken versions are out there.

Is this healthy community behaviour? Seriously I respect you as mod author, and generally think you are up there in list. But these types of passive attacks aren't really helping to change minds it kinda looks like your blaming us from the looks of it for blaming you, because we are not blaming you, but we are bla...see what I mean?

Of course I'm blaming you! People like you, the ones that have pushed win64 with reckless abandon, disregarding all the instability, all the issues, downplaying anything bad and broken related to Unity or KSP themselves, making sure that only the mods are left to blame... you're the ones that made win64 a nightmare to support (when we did), and then a nightmare to deal with anyway, because no one cares whether we support it or not, they'll crap all over our threads and bug reporting systems out of spite. You, and everyone else like you, that pushed for the official win64 version, the ones that jumped on modders the second they realized how broken KSP was, you're the ones that turned 0.24-0.90 into a wonderful hell of trying to deal with a broken game, and then users that were ticked that they couldn't play the broken version and then crap all over the modders for problems that aren't their fault, after you've set everything up so that they're the only ones left to blame for anything.

Don't talk about "healthy" community behavior when you're talking about win64 KSP either; this thing is nothing but cancer, and the sooner everyone accepts that it's broken and a mess, the sooner we can let it die for good and we'll all be better off.

7.

I knew full reason why SQUAD took 64bit out, they are a company, they have to aggregate risk vs reward. It is was a near instinct reaction and quite expected reaction for them to take out 64x bit, because they couldn't risk it, if 64x bit would have been a bat outta hell it would have huge stain on the game, could have angered Sony, could have gotten slammed by steam reviews, could have generated bad gamer's press.

As they should have for the time that they spent with the broken builds available. As they should have for the damage it caused to the modding community. If they managed to get away with it, that's impressive, but the fact that they got away with it doesn't erase all the damage that it has done and that the hack threatens to bring back. And you should be smart enough to not push for something that will cause a ton of damage, and doesn't even work either.

I really wish they were as quick to pull it as you think they were. We asked back in 0.25 when it was apparent that 0.24 was a complete disaster. They refused. We locked mods as a last resort to try and reduce support workload because telling users that you don't support it doesn't work. Everything went to hell. And now you want to bring us back to that? Why?!

But I am not SQUAD, so I had the full choice to install an 8GB game engine to get the files needed to run 64x bit. But really Ferram, is SQUAD going browse this thread and magically say, "Oh, yes finally, the community 64x has done it again! Might as well release" if so, their game, nothing we can do about it. But all of reality would point to SQUAD is working on the real 64x if at all and that might settle this frivolous issue.

No, they'll release because there are a bunch of people screaming that it's so stable (even though that's a lie) and that Squad screwed up by pulling the build then, and they'll release it under pressure, just like they did before. And it'll be a disaster, just like before. Because this has all happened before. Nothing is different, it's the same lies, with the same behavior, the same blind eyes towards issues.

So if you like to continue this debate, just PM me, there is no need for this to continue, it is what I call a "Unstoppable Force meets an Immovable Object" debate, neither of us can definitively prove our side is wrong, but I am willing to continue if you need to vent more about 64 bit.

Ah, yes. Let's stop debating publicly after you get the last word and dismissed all of my points. I do think you're right, there's no point arguing directly with someone who has seen fit to dismiss all of my points and to ignore what I've said when it's convenient for the argument. On the other hand, continuing for the sake of everyone else is quite good.

I get it. You'd like win64 to be stable. It's in your interests to present it as stable. If it were stable, that would be great for all of us. But it's not; I've tried it, it crashes just as badly as before. It's just not worth dealing with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Murdabenne

Murdabenne

Posted
Posted (edited)

After trying 64bit (which is what brough me here), I do not use the 64bit substitute 4.6.4 unity client, because despite its obvious advantages in better leveraging my hardware (i7, 32GB RAM, SLI cards) and 64bit OS (Win8.1pro) and despite the arguments to the contrary, it is buggy. I enjoyed being able to load all the shiny stuff, and not worry about crashes or having to exit the game every 30 minutes during heavy design phases (hanger-runway-hanger-runway a few times eats a tonne). Don't spin so much - there are defects and issues no matter how much gloss you apply to cover them. In the end, having some mods I like be unstable due to the 64bit engine and the underlying app (the game itself) not being properly coded for 64bit, well it is simply not worth the trouble.

But neither do I use Ferram's aero addons, same as Kerbinside, and other apps I would like to always have loaded always. Its the RAM usage and memory leaks that force me to trade off game play (how often do I want to save and restart, or crash?) vs addon value. The 4gb RAM limits of 32bit are an issue for players: no matter how you dance around it 32 bit is inadequate, and the best solution is 64bit address space. So 64bit should be pushed as a goal for the game for the reasons stated above, instead of simply dismissed. And you should not block efforts to experiment with 64bit -- I refer you to open source manifesto, and someone may just find something you didn't expect (don't be so arrogant). Short of a functional 64bit address space, and something that uses more than a single core, well it trying to cram it all into 32bit space and putting up with the crashes is simply not worth the trouble.

And truthfully, they attitude/ego of both of you makes your argument time and effort wasted - neither of you is actually fixing the problem with this arguing. You may eventually make yourselves simply not worth the trouble.

Its a shame you refuse to find a solution somewhere in the middle, the rest of us have a GAME to play. Good luck hashing this out, or at least being a bit more civil and simply agreeing to disagree and stop picking at each other like kindergarten children.

Edited by Murdabenne
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vanamonde

Vanamonde

Posted
Posted

Fighting each other about this isn't going to solve anything. People who want to try this workaround are free to do so. People who don't like it don't have to. Some mod-makers want to disallow the use of their mods in 64bit, and that is their choice. Squad will resume working on a 64 bit version when and if they feel it's worth taking the time to do. And getting angry with each other about it isn't going to change anyone's mind.

And this thread was created for those who wish to use this workaround, so anything other than how to do so is off-topic. Please set the arguments aside and keep the discussion here for that subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheMoonRover

TheMoonRover

Posted
Posted

Yes, the 64 bit hack for KSP, by the very nature of being a hack, will be unpredictable, with greatly varying results for different people with different mods at different times on different computer set-ups with different hair lengths, all of which can affect the results.

Okay maybe not the hair, but my point is it's near impossible to predict how it will behave without trying it.

That doesn't mean it won't work, and indeed it sounds like many people find it works better than previous 64 bit versions of KSP, although with the expected weird extra bugs specific to previous 64 bit versions. If you try it, expect it not to work. That way, if it works, it'll be a pleasant surprise, and if it doesn't that's okay, you weren't expecting it to in the first place.

But remember, it is technically a hack and not officially supported. Squad discontinued it because of it's unpredictability and overall bugginess. Some mods may not work correctly, or at all. This is due to bugs in the game engine itself, which cannot be fixed by Squad or KSP modders (until KSP uses Unity 5, which will make this hack redundant anyway) You will get some odd bugs and maybe game crashes due to the unstable nature of the hack, but if it's playable for you, you can add loads of extra mods before crashing from Out of Memory errors. The whole point of the 64 bit hack is to allow the game to use more RAM than the ~4 GB maximum for a 32 bit process, so don't bother if you're not using that kind of RAM, or have 4 GB or less of RAM available on your computer.

So, if you are getting crashes to to hitting the RAM limit in the 32-bit version (usually it will crash while loading if you are) or want to add more mods which will cause that, it's worth trying the 64 bit hack. If you aren't, don't bother; there's no possible advantage to using it and 32-bit version is both more reliable and officially supported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scavenger

scavenger

Posted
Posted

yes TheMoonRover is right, the thread is starting to troll...

Whoever is right is not the point. Stock KSP is unstable and suffers from strong memory leakages, we won't go back on that. Each go back and forth from VAB or SPH adds like 50/100MB RAM that will never get freed, this is leakage, whatever you call it.

SO, the real deal is: what do you prefer? Really stable game up to 3,600MB then you have to exit, or *almost* stable game but up to 6,000MB RAM?

I made my choice, and choose to deal with the unpredictable crashes for the joy not to have to look at the RAM growing stressfully all the time.

I play much longer now, as long as I stay careful not to crash my plane in weird ways, which really avoid the 64bit game freezes. Plane crashes are fun that's true, but hopefully this is not the main goal of the game :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WWEdeadman

WWEdeadman

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

So to conclude:

The workaround is more stable than previous 64 bit versions for SOME people, it still crashes randomly for others, (like for ferram, obviously) which is definitely neither the fault of mod makers, nor the fault of Squad. Unity 4's x64 player just has issues that are beyond Squad or let alone the mod developers to fix. The base game just being glitchy for most of the people who posted here is no coherent prove for a 64 bit KSP windows build to be stable. The same faults in the engine that lead to the minor glitches on the base game (buildings upgrading, astronaut complex flashing up on screen transitions etc.) could be the reason some mods break on it. It could also be other bugs in the engine, that we don't know of. There is no telling what exactly causes the problems, unless you're among the people who developed the engine.

As it is, a 64 bit windows build of KSP surely ISN'T stable enough for an official release of a win x64 version. And I hope I speak for all of us if I say: We don't want squad to release a 64 bit version that is that broken.

Also, yes, there sure are people who don't understand that the problems with windows x64 KSP are something that is caused by the ENGINE being faulty, not the mods that happen to break on it. And I can absolutely understand that mod devs getting spammed by such people about issues they literally neither caused nor have any option to fix, get upset about that.

To anyone who doesn't understand that: Imagine you have a car that is fueld by diesel, and people come around complaining that it breaks if you fill in gasoline. And if you try to explain they go ahead and say: "But it works on that other car, your car must be broken."

Might not be the best analogy, but I think it shows pretty well how someone saying mod devs are at fault looks to someone who understands that the engine has bugs that are beyond anyone but the unity people to fix.

The entire 64 bit discussion would be irrelevant if the game wouldn't use the ancient system of loading the entire game and all assets into the RAM on start up every time. I don't blame Squad for starting out like that, since the game wasn't originally meant to become so massive and have such a huge modding community. However, somewhere along the line I wish they had implemented a load on demand system or something along those lines. As it is, the stock game by itself already uses a whole lot of RAM, and doesn't leave much room for mods. Even with mods like Active Texture Management there is a limit to modding 32 bit in its current state. (Also I personally don't think compression of textures is a very good solution to the RAM problem, but yeah, we're lacking any better solutions currently) Would such a load system take a lot of work? Probably. Should Squad have implemented such a system already? Definitely

In any way, further discussing what one thinks the other side tries to accomplish, or reading accusations and statements into others posts, that they haven't put in there, surely won't help anyone. Anyone who tries this should have read the OP, and should therefore know that this workaround is EXPECTED to have bugs, and that they can't reasonably expect it to consistently work with ANY available mod. (And I intentionally worded it like that. It's not the mod that doesn't work on x64; it's the 64 bit version that doesn't work with the mod)

Sadly there is still always going to be people who don't understand that, and will bother mod devs about it, and push squad to make an official 64 bit windows build. As per usual, such vocal minorities cast a shadow on the entire community. Frustrating, yeah, but unless someone invents a way to automatically shut up such vocal minorities we'll have to live with it.

I just hope that unity 5 actually fixed the 64 bit issues. Having an actual 64 bit version of the unity editor, and such. Anyway, we'll see about that when they're finished porting to Unity 5, which will be a while.

Edited by WWEdeadman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lumaan

Lumaan

Posted
Posted (edited)
http://i.imgur.com/0nKV0MO.png

This happens for me. Do I replace everything? Or just put them next to each other?

- - - Updated - - -

My PC is 64bit

Wrong Unity version. Has to version 4.6.4. From old 64bit post http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/82118-KSP-64bits-on-Windows-%28this-time-it-s-not-a-request%29:

-The "Could..... not preload global game manager #0 i=0" error is what you get if you don't use the correct version of the Unity Player.

To be sure (and to reproduce the operation once the engine will be updated, without waiting for an update here): right click on your original KSP.exe.

Go to "details" and check the version. You should be able to see what Unity version you need to download. (launcher.exe and KSP.exe don't use the same version)

Edited by Lumaan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...