Poor performance, but low system resource usage?

[steve_v]

2 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

You need to watch Bambi again...

Uh huh. A mighty reliable source of information and full of valuable life lessons I'm sure. And the signal-to-noise ratio degrades further...

[Rocket In My Pocket]

10 minutes ago, steve_v said:

Uh huh. A mighty reliable source of information and full of valuable life lessons I'm sure. And the signal-to-noise ratio degrades further...

It's clear you just want to argue, and that it's detracting from the point of this thread which is helping the OP.

Good day sir. 

 

Edited January 5, 2016 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Speadge]

@rocket: since you don't seem to have any good knowledge about pc and ksp, like the 2gb\4gb switching showed, and you add informations by others to your first post shows, I'd suggest you stop throwing ANY ideas in the ring that might lead to more chaos than to clarify.As I said. Do your homework first, please.     Not only the OP will be mislead by your wrong information, but its even unkindly to sell others information as your own knowledge.

 

To the OP. The videos in the thread mentioned are all speed up by videoediting. Check the upper left timer in each video for the color of the time. Each frame being not green is a laggy one. Red indicates more than 5times slower gameplay.. Or even worse

Edited January 5, 2016 by Speadge

[Badsector]

11 hours ago, steve_v said:

I too wonder about this, I suspect some people have a high tolerance for low framerates. Personally, <30FPS = not really playable.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about FPS-Performance, 20 fps is enough for have a game playable the problem is slow motion (when in game clock becomes yellow) when you reach physics calculations limits for frame, that make the game unplayable, the point is find a setting that make you play most of the time with the clock green.

Physics-delta-time low (0.03) give high FPS but the game reach fast CPU calculations limits, Physics-delta-time high (0.12) for less FPS but the clock is most of the time green.

I have find a good solution with 0.06 but you  have to find a solution that fit your gameplay and your computer performance

[Rocket In My Pocket]

@Speadge Suggesting some programs he might try is going to "lead to more chaos?" Lol.

Correcting the 2Gb to 4Gb was wrong in some way? Did you want credit or something? Kind of petty don't you think? Anyone who reads the thread can see that it was edited and leaving up the wrong info would have been worse as your so keen to point out.

You seem rather antagonistic for no reason I can discern. You need a chill pill guy.

 

[Vaporized Steel]

Remember that there is a timewarp mod that lets you process ksp in 4x slowmotion. That combined with max physics delta time frame to 0.3 and video editing software and you can easily make a 800part ship launch video in 30-60fps.

most of those vids you see were played under 1-5fps. In fact in many lllets play videos the uploaders mention time slowing mods and video editing software being used. In fact these tricks are widely used in many stress intensive programs and games that are uploaded on lets say youtube.

But i agree that ksp runs slow under complex physics calculations and something like a unity update are necessary.

[steve_v]

20 hours ago, Badsector said:

There is a lot of misunderstanding about FPS-Performance, 20 fps is enough for have a game playable the problem is slow motion (when in game clock becomes yellow) when you reach physics calculations limits for frame, that make the game unplayable, the point is find a setting that make you play most of the time with the clock green.

Perhaps you are happy with 20FPS, I am not. Frames-per-second == number of graphical updates in one second. Whether this is due to slow graphics processing or the game waiting for something (physics calculations) to complete before pushing the next frame to the render queue is irrelevant - the result is the same. I would much prefer the game runs physics slower than realtime to maintain a decent framerate, however there is only so much that can be achieved by adjusting physics delta. And no, I'm not at all prepared to put up with the game running like a slideshow to get those physics calculations done (green timer). As well as graphics updates becoming unpleasantly slow, it causes a bunch of other issues, such as input lag.

Mucking with the physics-delta slider is simply trading one symptom of shoddy physics engine performance for another.

Edited January 6, 2016 by steve_v

[Majorjim!]

On 01/05/2016 at 1:14 AM, XOIIO said:

Oh really? I figured part count performance would have increased if anything.

Nope. We all hoped, wished for better performance. 0.90 was the best. 800 parts was playable. Now 300 parts feels like 800.. It is a very sad state. One that hopefully will be fixed by the move the unity 5. Don't hold your breath though..

[InsaneDruid]

I have some strange FPS-Isses recently, that i dont have really sorted out yet. BUT: the issue is only there when i use an older career that was started in 1.0 or so.

The fps fluctuate wildly between like 70 and low twenties whenever i have a kerbal-manned ship focussed. If I have a ship with no kerbals in it, then all is fine. At first I though of a part-count issue (though my ships and stations ran very well until now AND with a newly created savegame they do still run great (>50 min fps) as they are rather small. So i deleted all the flying vessels, put 3 lander cabins stacked together on the pad and the fps fluctuate wildly, even the phycics bar goes yellow from time to time. If I EVA the three Kerbals, FPS shoot up and all is fine. New savegame, same three landercans with kerbals -> no problems.

 

So, maybe try starting a new game first.