Jump to content

I play ksp version 0.25 all day erryday.

Xkay7

By Xkay7
in KSP1 Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

The Aziz

The Aziz

Posted
Posted
This is a joke thread, right? Sorry if it isn't, but I'm pretty certain that the system requirements for the versions since 0.25 have not increased and that due to bugfixes and optimizations that game actually runs better. You have tried the newer ones, right?

It really depends on the hardware. My 7-year-old thing has less and less fps every single version. 0.25 was nice, 0.90 was ok, then 1.0 came out and sudden performance drop. At the moment it can't handle 1.0.5 without blowing up from time to time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mastikator

Mastikator

Posted
Posted
It really depends on the hardware. My 7-year-old thing has less and less fps every single version. 0.25 was nice, 0.90 was ok, then 1.0 came out and sudden performance drop. At the moment it can't handle 1.0.5 without blowing up from time to time.

... 7 year old computer? That's like 110 in computer years, I'm not surprised it can't take 1.0+

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cantab

cantab

Posted
Posted (edited)

My experience is that 1.0.x has clearly and considerably worse performance with high part counts than 0.90. It's probably, but not definitely, down to the new thermal and perhaps aero system. The extended physics range is a factor too - in older versions once your dropped stages got 2.5 km away they vanished getting rid of the CPU load, now you still suffer that until they're over 20 km gone.

0.90 I still consider the best KSP version, the gizmos revolutionised VABwork and as a committed FAR user I have no interest in the newstock aero, though I know some Windows players had a lot more trouble with its stability than I have on Linux. 1.0 through 1.0.4 I consider the worst KSP versions since I bought the game, with their glacial performance and shoddy thermal system. I've yet to play 1.0.5 enough to really make a conclusion, though my preliminary results are that game performance hasn't improved over 1.0.4.

If it wasn't for new FAR along with Kopernicus, I'd probably switch back to 0.90. Unfortunately the modders all swiftly move their efforts to the new KSP version whether or not it's actually any better than the one before.

Edited by cantab
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pandaman

pandaman

Posted
Posted

My machine is 2009 vintage. Running 1.0.5 ok. With KER and KAC and Asteroid Day. Frame rate a bit chuggy especially with a couple of craft in range but playable. Daren't run any other mods. Takes ages to load up and between scenes which is my main source of irritation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TimePeriod

TimePeriod

Posted
Posted

Stick a couple of ram into your old dustbin, a new GPU and a CPU and you are off to 1.0.5 in a instant. Less then a 300$ upgrade.

Yes, you can afford that if you save your money for 3 months, even on minimal wage.

Yes, you can buy that.

Yes, its on sale.

No, don't make up excuses.

No, we don't believe them.

No excuse not to buy new hardware, its never been this cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pecan

Pecan

Posted
Posted (edited)

Less than USD $300 wouldn't even buy an nVidia 970 in the uk ^^, apart from the fact that the CPU, motherboard and PSU would all need an update.

Meanwhile, I earn under USD $11.5k per year and still have to pay rent. It's a lifestyle choice (I'd rather work my computer to death than go to work myself) so neither an excuse nor a complaint, just a reason. End of life for this thing though, it's 9 in January and scheduled to join my other 5 other semi-retired machines. The oldest I'm still using is from 1998 - it plays web-server.

Any, KSP is still working within acceptable limits. With everything that has been added since 0.90 it's hardly surprising if that's not well as before. It's not a question of "Wahhh! Performance got worse :-(", it's a matter of, "Wow! Squad added all this and performance only suffered this much".

Edited by Pecan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Aziz

The Aziz

Posted
Posted (edited)

There are wages and wages. I had to pay for my studies recently, it took almost all of my last year's savings.

Speaking of performance, I have live usb Linux somewhere, can I actually run KSP on it more smooth than on old Windose?

EDIT: Nevermind, as always stuff happened, I can't boot from cd, usb or anything. Gah.

Edited by The Aziz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cantab

cantab

Posted
Posted (edited)
Stick a couple of ram into your old dustbin, a new GPU and a CPU and you are off to 1.0.5 in a instant. Less then a 300$ upgrade.

Yes, you can afford that if you save your money for 3 months, even on minimal wage.

Yes, you can buy that.

Yes, its on sale.

No, don't make up excuses.

No, we don't believe them.

No excuse not to buy new hardware, its never been this cheap.

This shows a complete lack of understanding of a simple fact: Not everyone is as wealthy as you. And not everyone stays as wealthy as they were when they bought that games console or once-great PC.

In any case it doesn't matter whether you have a £200 potato or a £10,000 dream PC, you'll have adapted to what your hardware can and can't do. For a game where performance was already marginal for a lot of players, taking a step backwards in performance is Not Good for KSP. And for many it will be better to stick with the version that works, if the alternatives are to suffer intolerable lag or to have to throw money at hardware.

EDIT:

Speaking of performance, I have live usb Linux somewhere, can I actually run KSP on it more smooth than on old Windose?
Unlikely. Linux and 64-bit KSP will let you run more memory-hungry mods and may reduce game crashing. The benefits even apply if you have only 4 GB of physical RAM. However framerates are at best going to be equal on Linux as on Windows, sometimes worse, depending on your hardware. Edited by cantab
Link to comment
Share on other sites
katateochi

katateochi

Posted
Posted
My experience is that 1.0.x has clearly and considerably worse performance with high part counts than 0.90. It's probably, but not definitely, down to the new thermal and perhaps aero system. The extended physics range is a factor too - in older versions once your dropped stages got 2.5 km away they vanished getting rid of the CPU load, now you still suffer that until they're over 20 km gone.

0.90 I still consider the best KSP version, the gizmos revolutionised VABwork ....snip*

I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goddess Bhavani

Goddess Bhavani

Posted
Posted

Once the thermal simulation came with stock, I've noticed a slight bit of frame drop in certain situations but certainly not as bad as the mod equivalent feature of old; Squad does make an effort to streamline the implementation and they're doing quite well.

I daresay a stock 1.0.2 or 1.0.4 should perform as well as stock 0.90, at least until the part counts get excessive.

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...