BOOST FPS

[Shadowedge]

Hey all i wanted to make a continuous post about ksp speed boost or fps boost 

firstly to speed up the game put your render quality to good or above - vsync off turn it off it causes laggg

 don't mod the game unless its not a graphics mod. dont use too many parts  also remember to CLEAN UP YOUR  DEBRIS

will do more

[Majorjim!]

Buy a faster CPU then all that other stuff become moot. They are not expensive anymore either.

[eddiew]

I agree with @Majorjim in general - but once you reach the level of an overclocked i5, there's not a lot of point in spending more. i7 doesn't help KSP at all, nor does it really matter if you have this year's CPU or one from 4 years ago because improvements have been so incremental.

SSD for boot speed. Mechanical hard drives just don't handle heavily modded installs very well.

Vsync doesn't cause lag per se, but it will cause you to snap to divisors of your monitor's refresh rate. Example, if you have a 60Hz screen and your computer is producing 40 fps, it'll have to drop down to 30, because it isn't allowed to render a new frame every 1.5 refreshes. If you can only do 25 fps, it'll slow to 20, 19 will come down to 15, and 14 will come down to 12. This tends to exacerbate the lag caused by a machine that can't keep up and makes the fps drop seem worse than it really is.

You can help alleviate this with a higher frequency screen, or going for FreeSync or GSync, which allows the monitor to refresh whenever a new frame is ready, meaning that 25 fps really is 25 and not 20. Alternatively, you can increase your physics delta time in the game options, which will make your clock turn yellow or red more often, but will keep the actual on-screen fps higher and give you a smoother feeling, slower, game.

[ExtremeSquared]

The idea that a motivated KSP player couldn't bring any CPU to its knees is absurd. Any CPU within the next 5 years even.

I use KJR and SpaceY. It's not because I need to cheat. I've built web-of-struts 2.5m monsters that would go to eeloo and moho in 0.22. I've proven I can. I've done my time.

Now I can build 7.5m launchers with one fifth of the part count, a few struts, and triple the frame rate for the same deltaV.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

5 minutes ago, ExtremeSquared said:

The idea that a motivated KSP player couldn't bring any CPU to its knees is absurd. Any CPU within the next 5 years even.

I agree, and it didn't take long for a thread like this to pop up after the 1.1 release

Anyhow, a nice mod to reduce parts is Kerbal R&D, especially when upgrading the solar and batteries.

 

[Kaizen]

dude it's easy. Get the tricoupler and chain them together. I crashed at ~260 parts on 32 bit. (now I have 64 bit)

[Hobbes Novakoff]

5 hours ago, eddiew said:

i7 doesn't help KSP at all

Fairly sure that if you are running 5 or more crafts at the same time (for instance, in the ASC dogfight series that is happening [/shameless plug]) an i7 would help. I wouldn't know, though...

We must test this! 

[Kaizen]

update: made new one, stopped at 205 because the TWR was going below 1.00.

seriously:

18th stage: TWR 1.02 SLT 1.09

[RandomUser]

Boosting FPS isn't really necessary anymore, unless of course you're on a old laptop or something of the likes.  My file server running a Core 2 Quad with a GeForce 545, note the lack of "GTX", can run the game exceptionally for such an old PC, and this was back in 1.0.5, without 64 bit.  Only PC I've had yet to start screwing up is my laptop, which sucks a lot.  My current rig is a i5-3470, GTX 750 Ti, 1TB HDD, with 16GB of DDR3 RAM.  I have yet to get unacceptable frame rates, and this is running intensive visual mods like Scatterer and Stock Visual Enhancements, and around 8k planet textures/skybox. 

Considering I'm only running an i5-3470, I can just imagine what you can get out of KSP on an i7 with a 980 or something. 

[Enorats]

5 hours ago, Kaizen said:

update: made new one, stopped at 205 because the TWR was going below 1.00.

seriously:

18th stage: TWR 1.02 SLT 1.09

Wait, you managed to hit your 18th stage and you weren't in orbit yet?! What sort of monster did you make?

Also.. second the CPU upgrade. That's the best way to improve the speed of the game from a hardware standpoint. FPS doesn't lag in KSP due to graphics, it's because your CPU is melting under the physics calculations.

One that's a couple years old is fairly cheap these days, I got one of the best out there 2-3 years ago and it's down to like a couple hundred these days. Still as good or better than the newer ones too. The i5 and i7 chips are great, as is the other one that's similar (5870 maybe?). I think it had slightly higher ghz and double the cache size. That's the one I went with and it's worked great.

Edit: It's the i7 4820K. That's the one I went with. Been a great chip, and it's basically got the same specs as it's younger brother the i7 5820K. Whether you're talking an i7 6700, 5820K, or 4820K the performance is basically identical across the board. Newer chips just tend to be slightly more efficient (in terms of electricity) and cooler running. Speed wise they basically maxed out what they could do with a processor core years ago and have been scrambling to figure what to do next.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Enorats

[wumpus]

13 hours ago, Majorjim said:

Buy a faster CPU then all that other stuff become moot. They are not expensive anymore either.

But this is 1.1, and buying an Intel celeron unlocked edition isn't going to be both the fastest possible Kerbal CPU and nearly the cheapest.  Anybody know how fast such a beast is, and how it compares to a vanilla i7?  I may want to keep my old AMD 8320 now that it can use more than 1 thread (for physics).

[Curveball Anders]

It can also be be worth to remember that physics calculations and fps isn't that tightly coupled in KSP as in many other FPS-style games.

I actually lock my fps to 30, since I don't need more and it leaves more cycles to the game.

 

[Matuchkin]

On 15/05/2016 at 3:46 PM, Shadowedge said:

don't mod the game unless its not a graphics mod

How many mods out there are not graphics mods, again?

[Sandworm]

On 5/16/2016 at 3:22 AM, eddiew said:

I agree with @Majorjim in general - but once you reach the level of an overclocked i5, there's not a lot of point in spending more. i7 doesn't help KSP at all, nor does it really matter if you have this year's CPU or one from 4 years ago because improvements have been so incremental.

SSD for boot speed. Mechanical hard drives just don't handle heavily modded installs very well.

Vsync doesn't cause lag per se, but it will cause you to snap to divisors of your monitor's refresh rate. Example, if you have a 60Hz screen and your computer is producing 40 fps, it'll have to drop down to 30, because it isn't allowed to render a new frame every 1.5 refreshes. If you can only do 25 fps, it'll slow to 20, 19 will come down to 15, and 14 will come down to 12. This tends to exacerbate the lag caused by a machine that can't keep up and makes the fps drop seem worse than it really is.

You can help alleviate this with a higher frequency screen, or going for FreeSync or GSync, which allows the monitor to refresh whenever a new frame is ready, meaning that 25 fps really is 25 and not 20. Alternatively, you can increase your physics delta time in the game options, which will make your clock turn yellow or red more often, but will keep the actual on-screen fps higher and give you a smoother feeling, slower, game.

 I disagree with spinning drives not handlings large installs.  They certainly do not load as quickly, but KSP is special in that everything is stored in ram.  Once there, there isn't much difference.

[eddiew]

I did say they don't handle heavy installs "very well"   I get a 15 minute boot from HDD, or 3 from SSD. It's very compelling, especially while the random crashes still happen!

[Shadowedge]

On 16 May 2016 at 10:30 PM, RandomUser said:

Boosting FPS isn't really necessary anymore, unless of course you're on a old laptop or something of the likes.  My file server running a Core 2 Quad with a GeForce 545, note the lack of "GTX", can run the game exceptionally for such an old PC, and this was back in 1.0.5, without 64 bit.  Only PC I've had yet to start screwing up is my laptop, which sucks a lot.  My current rig is a i5-3470, GTX 750 Ti, 1TB HDD, with 16GB of DDR3 RAM.  I have yet to get unacceptable frame rates, and this is running intensive visual mods like Scatterer and Stock Visual Enhancements, and around 8k planet textures/skybox. 

Considering I'm only running an i5-3470, I can just imagine what you can get out of KSP on an i7 with a 980 or something. 

My pc and others are probarbly slow of u cant afford a good pc strait away

[Shadowedge]

On 17 May 2016 at 10:03 PM, Matuchkin said:

How many mods out there are not graphics mods, again?

Quite alot acctualy think about bdamoury and part mods like spacey

[Shadowedge]

On 17 May 2016 at 8:47 AM, Curveball Anders said:

It can also be be worth to remember that physics calculations and fps isn't that tightly coupled in KSP as in many other FPS-style games.

I actually lock my fps to 30, since I don't need more and it leaves more cycles to the game.

 

Cool this will be uselfull to me and others

[Shadowedge]

On 16 May 2016 at 10:48 AM, Majorjim said:

Buy a faster CPU then all that other stuff become moot. They are not expensive anymore either.

sone pple wont be able to afford one however this is true

[Matuchkin]

38 minutes ago, Shadowedge said:

Quite alot acctualy think about bdamoury and part mods like spacey

Well then there you go. I recommend altering the sentence a bit, considering that most mods people install are not graphics mods.

[suicidejunkie]

Don't neglect having a video card.

I bought and installed a cheap $100 one just yesterday, and that has made a huge difference!

Now I've got the settings cranked up and EVE+Scatterer and it still runs

[Curveball Anders]

The somewhat complex relation between game play frames, displayed frames and 'physics delta' is explained by Claw(tm) in this post.