Mods: How many is too many?

[CrashTestDanny]

I think this is the correct forum since I'm really discussing KSP and how it relates to and interacts with mods. So there's the question. How many is too many? How many do people successfully run with? Do any of them actually decrease the resource utilization of the game or improve performance over unmodded installs?

Now, obviously there are the extreme (and obvious) viewpoints about mods out there and while I fully respect and value your opinions and your rights to play completely unmoddded or with nothing left of stock, what I'm really looking for here is input from the folks who are somewhere in the middle. So please don't post the extreme view points (we all already know that some of you don't need no stinking mods while others of you would prefer to mod it til it crashes, fix it, then mod it some more... )

And I'll start with my own story: I'm currently running about 44 AVC mods installed by CKAN and maybe 5-10 more that CKAN doesn't handle. Most of the mods I have installed are pretty stable and the modding community here seems to be very supportive. However, so far I have found that they do have impacts on performance and I have removed a few because they seemed to make the game slower or less stable. I have yet to find a mod that significantly improves stability or resource utilization. My philosophy leans a bit more to the mod it til it crashes end of the spectrum, but I have also removed some mods because they seemed to break the game - like one that has a big command pod that includes engines, fuel, control torque, and rcs to provide a one-part, 4-kerbal (or was it 6?) with awesome TWR and 5-6k deltaV... yeah... I don't play this game because I want to make it THAT easy... Ok - that's me... what about you guys?

Thanks!

Danny

[Gaarst]

Mod it 'til it crashes

...except that KSP crashes even when not modded, so forget that actually.

[Snark]

The answer to the question is, when the game crashes all the time or starts getting much crappier performance, that's too many.

It's very hard to generalize because different mods have radically different footprints and stability. Some are tiny and stable. Others are so large and/or buggy that just one mod can cause problems.

So the answer is, installed whatever mods you want and then see what happens. If your game is messed up, delete mods until it's not messed up any more. A good rule of thumb is that fewer is always better, all other things being equal, so don't install a mod unless you actually, specifically have a need for it. If you install one, play around with it a bit, and decide you don't need it, then uninstall it.

FWIW, I run only a half dozen or so mods, your 44+ made my jaw drop, but maybe I'm on the conservative side. . My own mod list includes a few must-haves: Navball Docking Alignment Indicator, Kerbal Attachment System (for pipes to build planetary bases), some simple LF-only tanks I modded myself to make up for the lack in KSP for non-spaceplane LF tanks. And then there are usually a few mods that I add on a case by case basis to enjoy for particular career games; these include RemoteTech, TAC Life Support, Atomic Age, New Horizons, Outer Planets, Extraplanetary Launchpads,Karbonite, Karbonite+, UKS/MKS (but not all at once!)

[G'th]

I don't know. But I like to think my list is pretty impressive:

[Guest]

You really have to experiment with it. Mods will slow it down, so mod it until it's as slow as you're willing to get it.

[Venusgate]

I don't use mods that intend to make the game easier - and I don't use mods in a way that make the game easier. For example, if you tweak scale air breathing engines you can get some AWESOME performance.

The exception to this is I use procedural tanks from the start because it's never made sense to me that the length of a tank should be tech dependent.

Number of mods don't phase me, but once the net sum (mod size minus deleted stock parts) is about +500mb, I stop d/ling part mods.

[Stone Blue]

I live in the "mod it till it crashes" camp... As was said, its hard to put a number on it... Without any large parts packs, I've managed to push just over 120 mods on Windows, with a mediocre laptop... WITH one or two pretty large parts packs, maybe 50-75... Now that I've jumped ship to 64bit Linux, I havent had a single crash yet, and am still adding mods... Currently at 110, with no large parts packs yet, and about 1GB of RAM to go... (Soon to be 3GB once I upgrade my comp from 6GB to 8GB...)

There are several other "stats" you could look at... One being total parts count... I've pushed just over 1225, with pruning, on Windows... Currently have 917 without any pruning... Adding more soon...

Edited November 6, 2015 by Stone Blue

[MacGamer04]

I use as many mods as I can until I'm running about 15fps with 200 parts. On a good day (a good install), I can get upwards of 20 mods in. On a bad day (worst install ever), I can manage like 2 or 3. It's all about your computer RAM. I'm currently working on getting all my other, non-kerbal stuff onto an external hard-drive, and devoting all my RAM storage to KSP...it's pretty intense.

[CrashTestDanny]

I don't use mods that intend to make the game easier - and I don't use mods in a way that make the game easier. For example, if you tweak scale air breathing engines you can get some AWESOME performance.

The exception to this is I use procedural tanks from the start because it's never made sense to me that the length of a tank should be tech dependent.

Number of mods don't phase me, but once the net sum (mod size minus deleted stock parts) is about +500mb, I stop d/ling part mods.

Totally agree with you about making things easier. While scaling up does yield benefits in the real world, it comes with some pretty significant costs and challenges, and I don't think the game (or the modders) really capture that in some cases - like the one-part ship I described. But I'm not trying to judge what entertains others - only saying that doesn't actually entertain me - I want a bit of challenge, maybe an opportunity to use all that math I learned in college, and the chance to see some "ideal world" rocket science in action...

- - - Updated - - -

I live in the "mod it till it crashes" camp... As was said, its hard to put a number on it... Without any large parts packs, I've managed to push just over 120 mods on Windows, with a mediocre laptop... WITH one or two pretty large parts packs, maybe 50-75... Now that I've jumped ship to 64bit Linux, I havent had a single crash yet, and am still adding mods... Currently at 110, with no large parts packs yet, and about 1GB of RAM to go... (Soon to be 3GB once I upgrade my comp from 6GB to 8GB...)

There are several other "stats" you could look at... One being total parts count... I've pushed just over 1225, with pruning, on Windows... Currently have 917 without any pruning... Adding more soon...

I should probably stand up a new linux machine to run this game on. Trouble is, now that I have this game I don't have any time left for junk like building new computers...

Danny

- - - Updated - - -

I use as many mods as I can until I'm running about 15fps with 200 parts. On a good day (a good install), I can get upwards of 20 mods in. On a bad day (worst install ever), I can manage like 2 or 3. It's all about your computer RAM. I'm currently working on getting all my other, non-kerbal stuff onto an external hard-drive, and devoting all my RAM storage to KSP...it's pretty intense.

You have non-Kerbal stuff on your PC?

j/k... I haven't quite gotten to building a dedicated Kerbal machine, but it's certainly being considered...

Danny

[SpaceplaneAddict]

I will use however many more to make a good SSTO. 1000 or 10.

[Van Disaster]

You don't have to use all of a part pack, so what does using half of it count as? that's still a mod. But yes, as many as will run.

[Stone Blue]

You don't have to use all of a part pack, so what does using half of it count as? that's still a mod. But yes, as many as will run.

Thats why i mentioned total part count... I like to prune as much as I can, and I use KSP ModAdmin to do it, and it has a total parts count always showing in the status bar, so I've ended up following my total part counts, trying to get that perfect (though non-existent) balance between collecting EVERY modded part ever made, clearing out duplicate or useless parts, and of course, the ALL-IMPORTANT game performance, RAM-usage...

[Van Disaster]

Procedural parts are a lifeline for that. Install B9 pWings & ditch just about all other wings, proc parts & throw out most of the tanks, etc. Stops the part catalogue turning into an unmanageable mess too.

Mostly it's textures rather than parts, though. Several versions ago there was a limit at about 630 parts where it'd get horribly unstable if you added just a few more, but that seems to have gone.

[John FX]

I add mods until the game is just at the point where if it crashed more I would not find it fun.

I`ve found myself in the position of having some mods which cause memory leaks and others that just randomly crash the game when memory is over a certain amount.

I really should do a binary sort and figure out which mods are doing this. I don`t want to because I like all my mods...

[A35K]

I would usually get as many mods as I feel like, obviously if I want them. I tend to like large parts mods like KW, B9, and Interstellar. None of these make the game 'easier', but they give lots of different ways of doing things. (I know Interstellar has Warp Drives and such, but they are at the very end of the Tech Tree and they are also pretty balanced, as after a warp you will likely have a huge circularisation burn. If you do it wrong it could exceed 20kms d-v:confused:).

[jhousen]

basic calculation for effective mod count:

n = u - 1

where n is the number of mods for a fun game

and n is the number of mods at which the game is no longer fun

[Hysterrics]

Just depends on the mods and how well your computer can run it.

I recommend the Community 64 bit workaround, despite what people say, it's more stable than 32 bit and you what cause the third world war for using it.
If you need to use mods that disable themselves on 64 bit use the 64bit Unfixer. [url]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/113069-WIN-1-0-X-KSP-x64-Total-Unfixer-v2-2-04-08-2015[/url]

[B][U]Disclaimer: Don't contact modders about their mods being broken if your using 64 bit. Please.[/U][/B]

[Violent Jeb]

I tend to think that 30-50 is more than appropriate.

It only becomes too much when the plethora of options become a hindrance rather than an improvement.

In my case, B9 or KW rocketry[sic] were both mods that had way too much content, and not only did it over-complicate my building process, it was using a massive amount of my free CPU.

Now, the VAST majority of my mods are gameplay/utility mods, which I generally feel should be stock, or the features should be integrated in stock in some way.


ATM
Ambient Light Adjustment (seriously, what other game has no brightness settings :mad:)
Distant Object Enhancement
FuseBox
KAC
KER
MJ
Precisenode
RPM
ScanSat
Stock Bugfixes
Test Weight

There's a dozen off the top of my head. if it enhances the game or improves your design / build process, then its not too much!

[Coga19000]

The problem with KSP and mods is that it has a limitation of 2.5 GB RAM; even if your computer is a beast, KSP simply won't go over that limit without lithobraking (crashing)
Just wait till Windows 64 is out, though, and the "mod it till the game crashes" mantra will rapidly change to "mod it till the computer is on fire".

[sal_vager]

It's closer to 3.5 gigabytes and that is assuming you have that much memory free after other programs and the operating system have taken their share.

See [U][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension"]physical address extension[/URL][/U] for more details.