What is this 1.1 stuff about?

[FreeThinker]

18 minutes ago, BloodDusk said:

Well, then it comes the ultimate question:

Is KSP stable now solely because the memory cap exists?

There's also the thing that going x64 could actually make the game slower instead of increasing its performance. Higher precision numbers means more complex math, therefore, more time and processing is necessary to do calculations.

Higher precision doesn't necessarily has an impact on performance. Single precision math is as complicated as double precision. A much bigger problem is that KSP was originally developed as a Indy game. It was never anticipated to grow  as big as it did. The only way to fix KSP fundamental problems will requires a complete rebuild. I hope th developers will start on KSP 2 after 1.1 is released, than perhaps after 3 years we can have a game with a level of sophistication that many mod developers try to achieve with mods, like N body physics, advanced aerodynamics and sophisticated plotting tools.

Edited February 13, 2016 by FreeThinker

[Tfin]

Just now, FreeThinker said:

Higher precision doesn't necessarily has an impact on performance. Single precision math is as complicated as double precision. A much bigger problem is that KSP was originally developed as a Indy game. It was never anticipated to grow  as big as it did. THe only way to fix KSP fundemental problems will requires a complete rebuild. I hope th developers will start on KSP 2 after 1.1 is released, than perhaps of 3 yers we can have a gime with a level of sophistication that many mod developers try to achieve with mods, like N body physics, advanced aerodynamics and sophisticated plotting tools.

So, you want them to get this one nearly right, and then abandon it? Seriously?

[BloodDusk]

Just now, FreeThinker said:

Higher precision doesn't necessarily has an impact on performance. Single precision math is as complicated as double precision. A much bigger problem is that KSP was originally developed as a Indy game. It was never anticipated to grow  as big as it did. THe only way to fix KSP fundemental problems will requires a complete rebuild. I hope th developers will start on KSP 2 after 1.1 is released, than perhaps of 3 yers we can have a gime with a level of sophistication that many mod developers try to achieve with mods, like N body physics, advanced aerodynamics and sophisticated plotting tools.

I'd say that the biggest Achilles heel of KSP is the game engine it runs on. I don't know how much overhead Unity adds, but most Unity games I've seen have poor performance. Even for the most simple games with non-3d graphics and small number of assets, you need a fast machine.

[jedensuscg]

Luckily some of the bigger mod authors are now working for squad in some capacity or have access to early builds of the game... Or they should. I think when 1.1 really hits it's large QA stage, authors should be able to apply for the development version in order to start rebuilding their mods.

[BloodDusk]

55 minutes ago, jedensuscg said:

Luckily some of the bigger mod authors are now working for squad in some capacity or have access to early builds of the game... Or they should. I think when 1.1 really hits it's large QA stage, authors should be able to apply for the development version in order to start rebuilding their mods.

This is a very segregating solution that could be solved simply for almost all of the mod makers with a simple thing called:

BETTER DOCUMENTATION

Why limit the testing phase for 'big mod authors' only? 

 

[SpaceNomad]

2 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

As a mod developer of one of the most complex mods for KSP, I foresee a lot of problems. Not only because KSP 1.1 will break a lot of mods , but also after they have been fixed. The 64 bit version will open a new frontier as player will no longer be limited by memory restriction. Therefore there will be no more restraint of limiting the amount of mods loaded which can cause incompatibilities. Already the biggest problems I face are interactions with other mods that cause all kinds of unexpected behavior, bugs and crashes. After 1.1, I expect these problems to increase exponentially.

It's actually not as bad as you might think. I'm playing the Linux 64-bit version of KSP with >100 mods installed and bad interactions between mods are astonishingly rare. There is another problem, though: Performance. The lots of mods I have installed lower my FPS quite substantially. Uninstalling a group of 40 mods raises my FPS in a certain situation from 12 FPS to 26 FPS. I'm now in the process of finding out which mods are the worst offenders to decide if they are worth their cost.

It might well be that people find that after installing lots of mods in 1.1 their performance to be worse than in 1.0.5.

[Hannu2]

3 hours ago, Tfin said:

So, you want them to get this one nearly right, and then abandon it? Seriously?

If that game were really an option, I definitely want them to make only 64 bit version and debug it to tolerable level and after that use all resources to develop KSP2. Unfortunately, there are far too few people who wants to accurate physics and precision flight management tools. Most want to explosions, crazy contraptions, eyeballing maneuvers and numberless spaceflight. The only hope to get spaceflight game with proper physics, good performance and usable planning tools is that there will be some kind of hobby project like Orbiter with possibility to plan missions and spacecrafts. Simple models and graphics but very high levels of realism, physical modeling and technical details.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Hannu2

[SpaceNomad]

4 hours ago, BloodDusk said:

Higher precision numbers means more complex math, therefore, more time and processing is necessary to do calculations.

The 64 bit vs. 32 bit version is not about double vs. single precision floating point numbers. It's just a coincidence that they are 64 vs. 32 bits long as well. Both double and single precision floating points exist on 32 bit architectures and 64 bit architecture. So, I don't expect there will be "higher precision numbers" in the 64 bit version.

[tsotha]

On 2/13/2016 at 8:09 AM, BloodDusk said:

Well, then it comes the ultimate question:

Is KSP stable now solely because the memory cap exists?

There's also the thing that going x64 could actually make the game slower instead of increasing its performance. Higher precision numbers means more complex math, therefore, more time and processing is necessary to do calculations.

There's no way to make a game stable such that you can have multiple external groups modifying the same game state.  That's really up to the people who write mods to sort out, and the best we're likely to do is something like CKAN which warns about common incompatibilities.

There's no reason for the 64 bit version to be slower, though adding 64 bit references will make the same program chew up more memory.  The multi-threading should make some things faster, though it adds new opportunities for bugs as well.

[Kerbart]

On 2/13/2016 at 11:10 AM, FreeThinker said:

Well , it would realy help if SQUAD would help mod developers for a changes because in the past, they just left the Mod developers like me in the dark. Every version update, made changes to the Library which mod developers depend on to create all the magic for their extension. (...)

I agree, but my point was that the average user of mods should exercise a little patience and not be expecting or demanding that every mod is updated on the same day the new version comes out. After all, mods are made by people like you, who have a life besides KSP.

Conversely, it would really help if the various update checkers would be a little bit more forgiving and not force me to close a pop-up every single time I start KSP, especially when it's a third-digit upgrade that is very unlikely to break compatibility. I understand CYA, but really a warning ONCE should be doing the trick (or at least a "don't show this again" option).

[Tfin]

4 hours ago, Kerbart said:

I agree, but my point was that the average user of mods should exercise a little patience and not be expecting or demanding that every mod is updated on the same day the new version comes out. After all, mods are made by people like you, who have a life besides KSP.

Conversely, it would really help if the various update checkers would be a little bit more forgiving and not force me to close a pop-up every single time I start KSP, especially when it's a third-digit upgrade that is very unlikely to break compatibility. I understand CYA, but really a warning ONCE should be doing the trick (or at least a "don't show this again" option).

Well, that's why CKAN is so useful. It runs its checks as a launcher, before you start KSP, rather than telling you about updates while the game is loading.

 

Though I really don't know what the "various" part of "various update checkers" is. The only one currently in use by any mod I use is AVC (or its "lite" version).

[Kerbart]

1 minute ago, Tfin said:

Though I really don't know what the "various" part of "various update checkers" is. The only one currently in use by any mod I use is AVC (or its "lite" version).

They don't tell me. And maybe it's all AVC (lite) and there's different behavior possible. At any rate, some mods will tell me they're outdated, I can update their version config file to bypass that. Others tell me they're outdated and I cannot update the config file (that gets old, especially when the mod doesn't get updated “because there are no significant changes between version 1.0.x and 1.0.y”). And then I know I encountered a few that simple refused to run under a new version, although I think I simply got rid of those.