Which version performed best for you?

[xebx]

A way to reduce the performance drop due to aero is to set 'aerodynamic fx quality' to very low, fps is better during ascent or reentry.

Another way to increase performance is to limit part count, efficient minimalist design and tweakscale (and kjr to reduce struts) can help. (or you will end in a lagfest anyway)

I have ships with 300-400 parts and they are playable but i try to limit new designs to 100-150 parts for a better gameplay experience. That said code optimisations are always welcome.

I didn't vote because i started the game in 1.0.2 (i remember red glowing bouncing spaghetti rockets, i prefer 1.0.4 as long as i don't have skin temperature increasing very fast)

Edited September 24, 2015 by xebx

[xtoro]

Yeah that's why I mentioned that I'll also do a test with graphics turned down including the mach effects. But I think those are more a graphics card thing which my crossfired cards can handle easily.

[FlipNascar]

Praying that Unity 5 will make it possible to loft more than 150 parts into orbit again! I couldn't go back to 0.90... But sometimes I wanna just for part counts.

[Feradose]

I picked 0.90 and 1.x because

0.90 was a big performance boost.

1.0.4 boosts performance even more, but aero effects started lagging very much.

1.x hopefully includes 1.1, which hopefully cures these headaches even more and doesn't crash of memory usage.

[wx7]

Although I started on 0.23, 0.24 was the most playable for me.

0.25 introduced some weird bugs that I never managed to get fixed...

1.0 still has these bugs, but it's kinda good.

[keeper]

I played with different mods on every update, but for me 1.x ran the smoothiest.

Oh for 150+ parts... No smooth experienced.

[boxman]

Looks like everyone bought it late ended up voting as well making this poll completely useless :\

I dont understand how anyone who played 1.0.x as well as older versions like .20~ would say that 1.0 perform better.

People have shown again and again that 1.0.x slows down much quicker with high part count ships.

I recall a time when I was able to launch ships with well over thousand parts even on my old phenom 2. Now people with even modern high end system start having huge frame rate drops already long before 500 part count.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the problems with 1.x and its performance drops are all the new calculations the game has to do with heat and aerodynamics compared to the previous versions.

It started before the new aerodynamics... It started slowing down already in the last .2x.xxx versions.

I have a feeling alot of people forget or dont know that the game slows down over time when persistance file/save file start accumulating stuff and then when they install a new version and start from scratch they believe they get a boost, when in reality the only boost is because they started a fresh game.

Even planting flags on other planets/moons will make the game run slower even though you are nowhere near even the planet they are on.

- - - Updated - - -

This poll and its shape are very interesting. Wonder why so many people said 1.x?

Also, .90 was best for me. 300+ part ships with playable framerates.

Now, it seems like once a ship gets to 100 parts or above, there's a massive wall of lag. Am i the only one who thinks this?

150+ parts now is subtle psychological torture...

Even my ancient core 2 duo laptop was able to handle that in .19 with 25-30fps. Amazing how now modern high end system have issues with what even the lowest end systems could handle before.

I hope they fix the underlying issue or else the multicore support is only going to make it play catch up to older versions and yet not reach same performance of older versions.

I bet if you tried .19 you would be able to get about same performance with 600 parts ;\

[includao]

Waiting eagerly for Unity 5.

[CaelumEtAstra]

Back in .23.x on Windows 7, the crashes were numerous. Mostly because of a butt-ton of mods, but even on the stock game it would crash. Windows 8.1 with .90 32-bit ran flawlessly, even with a load of mods. No crashes whatsoever, only time it would happen is if a mod got cranky and decided it was not its day. Now i'm on Linux with 1.0.4 in 64-bit, and the first installation gave me problems when loading the game on the AMD Galium open-source drivers. I installed the fglrx drivers and it fixed problem. If I have to install a different driver to fix a simple problem, then there is something fishy with the stability. Score: 0.90 (1), 1.0.4 (0)

[UnusualAttitude]

Not voting. I've been playing on Mac OSX since 0.24, and in terms of performance KSP has delivered a completely consistent experience for me: it has always been abysmal.

[Willbl3pic]

0.10 could run on my old ~2006 macbook.

So.... yeah.

[Van Disaster]

Hard to tell - I used more mods in 0.25 & 0.90 than say, 0.23 so that knocked performance a bit. Older versions were really crash happy though. Also I remember trying to dock a spaceplane with a station in 0.20 or something around then & it taking literal hours.

I still use 0.90 rather than current for anything other than challenges.

[Starwhip]

0.25 or 0.90.0 here as well. Had several multi-hundred-part craft in physics range together in atmosphere and the lag was negligible. 1.0.4, and the game lags pretty hard with multihundred part ships.

I don't blame anyone, the new aerodynamic and thermal heating systems take a larger toll on the game.

[Majorjim!]

This is an inaccurate poll due largely to the number of people who started playing in version 1.0+ There are a LOT of new players who will not have experienced the performance of past versions.

[Bomaye]

I like the standard of this poll, much like Kerbal Space Programe in general...........try and fail

[Capt.Joseph Kerbertson]

I've been on KSP since .13. I have had far less crashing and more mods on the current version than ever before.

[Majorjim!]

I've been on KSP since .13. I have had far less crashing and more mods on the current version than ever before.

This I don't agree with. In terms of FPS performance v1.0+ Is the lame duck too. I do have high hopes for unity 5 though. And the thermal system will likely be reworked and streamlined too. Preserving performance should be forefront of Squads mind when making game changes. In my opinion.

[Van Disaster]

Yes, but some of the worst memory leaks were fixed in 1.0 - which means less scene change crashing with borderline memory use. The bits inbetween crashes, not so good.

[Red Iron Crown]

I've been on KSP since .13. I have had far less crashing and more mods on the current version than ever before.

This I don't agree with. In terms of FPS performance v1.0+ Is the lame duck too. I do have high hopes for unity 5 though. And the thermal system will likely be reworked and streamlined too. Preserving performance should be forefront of Squads mind when making game changes. In my opinion.

You're not even disagreeing. The quoted post says nothing about performance.

[Anachronda]

0.18. Since then, I've had no audio in the map view.