How much RAM do you have?

[peachoftree]

I ask this because with the upcoming unity 5 update, you will be able to use all of it! And also so that if people do have a lot of RAM on average, maybe squad can see this and raise the recommended specs a bit, for things like clouds and maybe even procedural cites, more planets and parts, the sky's the limit. Well the RAM's the limit but you get my point.

Edited August 21, 2015 by peachoftree

[Nich]

32 gigs but I feel no need to increase the minimums that is what mods are for.

[peachoftree]

Did I say minimum specs? I meant to say recommended specs, which have >4 gigs in plenty of games.

[Alshain]

Well first of all, Clouds shouldn't matter. For something like that you can easily put a configuration option to turn them off, and then on the next restart they won't load. Minimum specs implies you won't get full graphics anyway.

There are no minimum specs, just recommended as far as I can tell. When that happens recommended and minimum are usually synonymous.

So, here is the problem suddenly changing the system specs. Someone out there paid for this game and has only 4GB of RAM. They paid for it based on the specs listed. Now lets say Squad comes along and increases that to 8GB, does that person get their money back or do they just get screwed into a game they can't play? It doesn't matter if it's half the community or 1 person, they paid good money for the game. The only way to viably introduce a system spec change without causing an uproar is to include it as part of an optional expansion. Before you do, don't say that the version to version upgrade is optional. Upgrades fix bugs and everyone should get that benefit.

All of that said, there are ways Squad can squeeze out some memory performance if they take the time to redo some of the textures to be more re-usable (and no, I'm not talking about Load on Demand).

Edited August 21, 2015 by Alshain

[xtoro]

Have 16 gigs, but never used more than half on 64bit. Currently using 72 mods. I've never come close to 100% doing anything. Even my servers ay work that run huge databases are nowhere near needing more ram... In fact, I can't think of anything that needs more, especially with newer OSes needing less and less.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, after thinking about it, I did build 2 machines at work years ago that had 32 gigs. One was a server for simulation software that had 12 client PC's connected to it and did lots of computing, logging and analyzing of huge amounts of data. The other PC was for digital map editing and creating overlays that loaded huge uncompressed bitmaps. Those both came very close to maxing out their 16GB so I put in 32.

[richfiles]

So glad I have 32 GB and a quad 3.5 GHz i7 with a good amount of overclocking room.

[Padishar]

I ask this because with the upcoming unity 5 update, you will be able to use all of it!

Citation needed.

As far as I'm aware Squad have not said that the next release will include a Win64 version and they are very unlikely to until at least part way through experimental testing.

[Red Iron Crown]

Citation needed.

As far as I'm aware Squad have not said that the next release will include a Win64 version and they are very unlikely to until at least part way through experimental testing.

Referring to Max teasing it, I believe:

"We got like... 64 reasons to be excited about 1.1" -Maxmaps, Twitter

On topic: I'm running with 8GB right now, will probably add another 8GB if Win64 is stable and good.

[Robotengineer]

I got 16GB. The most RAM I've ever used playing KSP was up around 11GB. Of course, we Linux master people have had 64bit for a while, so its kind of old hat now.

[Vicomt]

4GB. and it SUCKS. big time.

I get a couple of hours play before it starts giving me real problems though.

luckily, it's bonus month this month, so I'm off looking for a new Mobo/CPU/RAM bundle

[problemecium]

12GB. It wasn't on the list. There should be an option for "other not greater than 64GB."

[Padishar]

Referring to Max teasing it, I believe:

"We got like... 64 reasons to be excited about 1.1" -Maxmaps, Twitter

On topic: I'm running with 8GB right now, will probably add another 8GB if Win64 is stable and good.

Hmmm, that's rather a long way from "there will definitely be a win64 version of 1.1"...

Also on topic, depending on which machine I decide to run it on, either 3GB (on Win32), 8GB or 16GB though it is only my RO install that will benefit really (apart from memory leak related crashes ) as most of my installs have very few "big" (part or enhancement) mods and don't get near the 32bit limit. I generally only install part mods when testing specific mod issues.

The 3GB Win32 machine does have problems even with very few mods so I only ever run stock + utility mods and reduce the texture quality on that.

Further to what Alshain said above, any significant increase of base memory usage will prevent the game from running on Win32 at all without an overhaul of (at least) the texture loading mechanisms. This would be another chunk (maybe small, maybe not so small) of users who have bought the game and would be prevented from running the new version.

- - - Updated - - -

12GB. It wasn't on the list. There should be an option for "other not greater than 64GB."

I suggest pretending there is a plus on the end of each option, so select the 8+ one...

[Alshain]

Hmmm, that's rather a long way from "there will definitely be a win64 version of 1.1"...

If you have been around long enough, you know that vague comments on Maxmaps personal twitter is how Squad confirms upcoming features. Consider it a definite win64 version in 1.1.

[Padishar]

If you have been around long enough, you know that vague comments on Maxmaps personal twitter is how Squad confirms upcoming features. Consider it a definite win64 version in 1.1.

6 months longer than you by our forum join dates and, no, while I do hope it's released and am fairly confident it will be, I won't consider it definite until it actually is released or there is a much more official looking announcement. As I said, I really don't expect them to make the final decision until at least part way through experimental testing, otherwise they could find they release it and lots of people have problems (and this could still happen even if the experimental team have no problems with it though it is much less likely).

[Slam_Jones]

12 gB here, and it seems fine for what I'm doing with it.

[Gaarst]

I got 6 GB but a crappy i3 laptop CPU, so the CPU's the problem for me, already struggling when launching (due to smoke) and operating a 120+ parts vessel...

So, personally, I'd like Squad to keep the minimal requirement low (as it is today) and add all sorts of fancy graphic stuff as optional settings

[CalculusWarrior]

8 GB, but I'm thinking of upgrading (perhaps to 12) as I've been edging pretty close to that cap lately.

[moogoob]

All you folks with money. 4 gigs.

[klgraham1013]

I'd say the average user only actually needs 4. I run KSP on Linux, so I have 8.

[Guest]

I have one of these with an i7 and 8 GB on Mint 64-bit. It works pretty well, actually, considering my actual gaming box is an older Core2 Duo with 4 GB on Win7 32-bit.

[wizisi2k]

32 GB here on a new machine. I got the room to double that to 64 GB. I'd love to run the mods I got at full-res rather than maybe get in 4-5 launches with the ones I got and crash. My old PC had 12 GB

[John FX]

Have 16 gigs, but never used more than half on 64bit. Currently using 72 mods. I've never come close to 100% doing anything. Even my servers ay work that run huge databases are nowhere near needing more ram... In fact, I can't think of anything that needs more, especially with newer OSes needing less and less.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, after thinking about it, I did build 2 machines at work years ago that had 32 gigs. One was a server for simulation software that had 12 client PC's connected to it and did lots of computing, logging and analyzing of huge amounts of data. The other PC was for digital map editing and creating overlays that loaded huge uncompressed bitmaps. Those both came very close to maxing out their 16GB so I put in 32.

Try working with video or graphics. I have 32GB and I run out of ram very often just working on single images, some of which are 20GB+ but at that size I have to restrict the effects I can apply.

I don`t have enough RAM for example to do a polar transform on a 50,000x25,000 pixel image in Photoshop.

In After Effects the recommended RAM is 48GB...

To work without major restrictions I would probably need 128GB and 32 cores with a 12GB+ video card.

KSP does not stretch my machine much except for the fact it runs on a single core and does not throttle itself regarding CPU usage or GfX card usage.

[Cairol]

10 GB

Good for everything but Adobe After Effects. It's only worth a couple of seconds of HD pre-rendering...

For games, it's sufficient until now.

[peachoftree]

12GB. It wasn't on the list. There should be an option for "other not greater than 64GB."

I wasn't aware that ram came in amounts other than powers of 2

I got 16GB. The most RAM I've ever used playing KSP was up around 11GB. Of course, we Linux master people have had 64bit for a while, so its kind of old hat now.

I run linux too (elementary os + ubuntu), but was wondering because when squad considers updates they probably have their much larger windows user base in mind.

Edited August 21, 2015 by peachoftree

[Red Iron Crown]

I wasn't aware that ram came in amounts other than powers of 2

There were triple channel systems for a while that commonly had 6GB or 12GB, plus you can mix and match in a dual channel system to get 12GB.