THE single most aggravating thing in KSP for me is...

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

LaunchClamps in Stage0 Engine in Stage1.

On Lauch: Rocket drops to the ground, Engine is gone.

[Rabada]

LAG!

It is only a 2,500 part space station! Let me dock the 1,000 part shuttle to it with at least 3 fps, not 5 spf (seconds per frame).

Holy Crap! Did you make your entire station out of cubic octagonal struts or something? Seriously though, why so many parts? I get why people want KSP to run better with crafts with a lot of parts. My station really starts to lag when I dock 5 or 6 craft to it. But 2500 parts? But I don't find it that difficult to keep part counts down, even in full blown Realism Overhaul. Is this more of a piece of art than a functional station?

I checked my most recent game, and all but one of my 14 craft are under 100 parts in the VAB. The only craft file that has more than 100 parts is a large space station for a contract that supports 16 kerbals, has an Lab module, TAC lifesupport, and enough dV to put it into orbit of the Mun in a single launch.

[Bev7787]

Place engine, engine magically goes to a stage WITH A DECOUPLER to detach the stage the engine is on. I'm building top down.

[cantab]

Holy Crap! Did you make your entire station out of cubic octagonal struts or something? Seriously though, why so many parts? I get why people want KSP to run better with crafts with a lot of parts. My station really starts to lag when I dock 5 or 6 craft to it. But 2500 parts? But I don't find it that difficult to keep part counts down, even in full blown Realism Overhaul. Is this more of a piece of art than a functional station?

It's only because of KSP's performance problems that "art" and "functional" are in opposition.

[Majorjim!]

This is my entire problem with it right now (and I include the thermal stuff into that too as a big cause of the poor performance).

I've actually stopped playing KSP since the last release because of the performance, I just feel too restricted by the low part-counts that are possible now. 300 parts and it gets v laggy. Makes me very sad.

What sort of part counts and how many inflight craft are you working with?

Anytime someone says something like that they are flying a very low part count ship.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Red Iron Crown

[eddiew]

Orbit changes when crossing SoIs.

Missing Moho gets dull by the third or forth re-try, all of which have shown good encounters when back at Kerbin.

- - - Updated - - -

Ever built a craft with more than 150 parts?

It's even more brutal with spaceplanes :/ I cap myself to 120, else it'll be an unbearable flight. On a massively overspecced pc...

[Thegamer211]

My crafts with 200< parts (launchers, stations and bases mostly) run laggy.

When my space stations (with multiple modules docked) start to shake uncontrollably. Especially annoying when docking or taking science. Potentially craft breaking.

I blame the two service bays I have >_>

[vasco]

Orbit changes when crossing SoIs.

Missing Moho gets dull by the third or forth re-try, all of which have shown good encounters when back at Kerbin.

Try to do SoI changes without timewarp.

[Melonfish]

I must be the only person getting 120fps regardless of part count (well i'm yet to build something plus 1000 parts but i've had 600 flying without issue) and i'm running on 1920X1024 on very high settings.

Anyway, EVA from your lander on any planet, clip off a section of the ship and instantly get shot either into space or directly at the ground at around 1000m/s!

I lost Jeb like this, he made a very pretty mushroom cloud on Minmus.

otherwise i'm pretty patient, been playing since around 0.16 so i can wait for updates.

[MartGonzo]

not being able to place maneuver nodes, sometimes it just wont work, sometimes I can place them at the Pe and drag them back, but often they delete themselves when I try that or suddenly shoot off onto the next SOI.

I really hope that bug doesn't crop up in the Unity 5 update

[SlithyTove]

Lag with high part count ships for sure.

Time-warp kraken.

No docking alignment indicator on the nav-ball.

[Majorjim!]

I must be the only person getting 120fps regardless of part count (well i'm yet to build something plus 1000 parts but i've had 600 flying without issue) and i'm running on 1920X1024 on very high settings.

Hello there, that is are some incredible performance figures. As far as I am aware you are the only person with results like that. What are your system specs?

[worir4]

Whats even worse is quicksaving when you meant to quickload

Wait, that is what i meant. I will edit my post.

[Melonfish]

Hello there, that is are some incredible performance figures. As far as I am aware you are the only person with results like that. What are your system specs?

i5 4690k Devils Canyon OC to 4.2ghz, 797-p Asus board and 16gb of Corsair vengeance pro 1866. got an old 650ti boost 2gb in there too (asus).

it's the in game alt-F12 that's reporting 120fps, it may be way off?

I built the rig to play Arma 3 with my Clan as it's a mahoosively CPU intensive game, once i get water cooling i'm looking at booting the cpu to 4.7ghz.

added bonus is that when i booted up Kerbal I didn't see any slow down at any point, i've got a load of flights in progress, mostly probes etc.

Pete

[michaelhester07]

When I slightly lose control of a kerbal in EVA and he crashes through all the solar panels on the base. Only the panels from my stanford torus mod were strong enough to withstand a kerbal impact. That and the OX-STAT. That thing is indestructible.

(bull in a china shop)

(yes i know mythbusters debunked it)

[cantab]

it's the in game alt-F12 that's reporting 120fps, it may be way off?

The game's "fps" counter is indeed known to report framerates lower than x as x. Usually x is 25 fps though. Still, I'd check with an external framerate monitor such as fraps or voglperf.

[wossname]

My monitors won't scan faster than 60FPS so I just lock my max graphics rate to 60FPS (in the KSP settings), no point heating up my GPU for no reason

[Enorats]

The lack of a 64 bit version. It hardly matters what your PC specs are when the game caps out at windows xp era memory usage and can't handle multi core processors. Hopefully 1.1 will allow the game to use more than 1/8th of my PC so I can actually play with more than 150 part ships.

[Alshain]

Integer.ToString("N");

Was that so hard? Really. It's called a comma.

[Majorjim!]

i5 4690k Devils Canyon OC to 4.2ghz, 797-p Asus board and 16gb of Corsair vengeance pro 1866. got an old 650ti boost 2gb in there too (asus).

it's the in game alt-F12 that's reporting 120fps, it may be way off?

I built the rig to play Arma 3 with my Clan as it's a mahoosively CPU intensive game, once i get water cooling i'm looking at booting the cpu to 4.7ghz.

added bonus is that when i booted up Kerbal I didn't see any slow down at any point, i've got a load of flights in progress, mostly probes etc.

Pete

I would say without a shadow of doubt those reported FPS are not correct. I have a faster system, Intel 4970 4.40GHZ, 16gb RAM, GTX970 and I run at a slightly lower resolution.

Try a third party FPS counting software and see what happens. The fact that you say it never drops from 120FPS is indicative of error.

[Melonfish]

Haha, yeah shouldn't trust the internal clock, 74fps on launch of a large ship (shadowplay) I'll take that

[Stoney3K]

Single most aggravating thing for me has to be the asset loader.

Second that. Even with an SSD the game takes ages to load a bazillion parts from disk that you will never use *simultaneously*.

[Majorjim!]

Haha, yeah shouldn't trust the internal clock, 74fps on launch of a large ship (shadowplay) I'll take that

How many parts exactly? Any chance of a video?

[78stonewobble]

Having to use struts...

[Thegamer211]

Having to use struts...

And kerbal joint reinforcement is too strong.

I'd wish I could scale it in game or something.