[KSP 1.12.1+] Galileo's Planet Pack [v1.6.6] [23 Sept 2021]

[Tynrael]

@Galileo I've been experimenting with using TextureReplacer to overwrite stock textures with 4px by 4px blanks to cut down on memory usage. The savings are not a whole lot and I've had success doing this in a different pack previously, it seemed like since all the original bodies were removed I was curious what the impact might be (just over 300MB reduced RAM usage). I tabbed through the solar system in GPP and didn't see any glaring issues, I just wanted to make sure you weren't using any stock planet textures for any kind of added effect/noise/bump/whatever?

[Galileo]

Nope everything is custom.  You should be ok. And that is actually a really smart thing you are doing there

[eddiew]

17 minutes ago, Tynrael said:

... (just over 300MB reduced RAM usage). ...

It all counts   If you could share your process some time, I imagine we'd all be interested ^^

(My game loves to crash around 10.5gb memory used, so anything that buys an extra 10-15 minutes would be welcomed  )

[Tynrael]

1 minute ago, eddiew said:

It all counts   If you could share your process some time, I imagine we'd all be interested ^^

It is super simple, I have it setup right now as 2 folders (1 for Stock Planets 1 for IVA interiors, I never do IVA and its a free ~119MB). Copy over the TextureReplacer folder and it will add the tiny textures. Since they are swapped out when KSP starts you don't have to worry about anything being messed with. You do of course, need Texture Replacer

The mod-list for my current series is almost 120 mods and I hadn't realized how much memory I was using until I saw your post the other day! I've been trying to see how I can trim down the RAM hit for anyone that would like to pull from my CKAN files.

I have a link with some memory usage notes and a download for the textures:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aMVq3D_N9qU8zJX_nQGVjtKm11yBE_1D-XRcNrktRrQ/edit?usp=sharing

SVE doesn't appear to be a huge hit and the easiest things to do are override the textures that aren't needed and go for lower texture quality in the settings menu (if you need to). I'd imagine half quality textures and SVE would be better than no SVE at all. Or you know, less mods. Pulling out 26 content mods for a "lighter" version lowered RAM usage by 1.8GB.

 

22 minutes ago, Galileo said:

Nope everything is custom.  You should be ok. And that is actually a really smart thing you are doing there

I was working on writing a plugin to scan textures loaded into a scene in KSP to see how many of them made no sense to even be loaded so they could also be replaced (I gave up pretty quickly!). It never seemed to me that the RAM usage in KSP matched what was going on or what you saw haha. I personally imagine dozens of orphaned and unused textures loaded from sharedassets and know that many textures in the Squad folder exist multiple times (the...same...exact...texture... Why are there 6 of these!). It always bothered me.

[eddiew]

@Tynrael, thanks, I'll have a read later when I'm at my desktop (and sober ).

My game starts up around 7.3gb at the menu, but quickly balloons upwards during play. Lucky if I get 90 minutes before it passes 10gb and hits the "restart me now or I shall restart myself" mark. Would love to know why, but there's never anything written to the log to tell me which particular mod is at fault   Some day I'll pull out everything that isn't vital (i.e. a part on a current vessel) and see if I can find the offender, but until then anything that can drop the memory load is welcome

...to be fair, performance gets worse as memory use gets higher, so it's always good to minimise!

[astroheiko]

As you know, I have accepted the Tellumo 6 offer. Here the design:

So it is to expire: The whole ship lands first on Ceti, then on Iota and is replenished. Then it goes to Niven where only the small thing (up there at the parachutes) lands and starts again. Dock and then to Eta. Then Lilli and finally ends up the little thing on Tellumo. Should work, right? I also tried to make the design more appealing.

The offer seems to be easier than I expected. The effort is significantly less unmanned.

I also have 2 "Supreme 4 Rally". Fly by Niven, Tellumo, Ceti and Fly by Ceti, Iota, Eta. The ship, which is still in the orbit of Tellumo, is to check off the point "suborbital spaceflight above Gael". Then I am rich.

 

Greetings

[Norcalplanner]

Does anyone know what sort of effect engineers have on the various bits of Karbonite/Karborundum harvesting and conversion parts? I'm trying to weigh the pros and cons of various manned and unmanned craft designs, and the Karbonite thread disappeared.

[JadeOfMaar]

4 hours ago, Norcalplanner said:

Does anyone know what sort of effect engineers have on the various bits of Karbonite/Karborundum harvesting and conversion parts? I'm trying to weigh the pros and cons of various manned and unmanned craft designs, and the Karbonite thread disappeared.

They don't use skill effects but they need much more electricity.

[Norcalplanner]

1 hour ago, JadeOfMaar said:

They don't use skill effects but they need much more electricity.

Much more electricity is used... without an engineer?

[JadeOfMaar]

1 minute ago, Norcalplanner said:

Much more electricity is used... without an engineer?

More electricity. Period. An engineer's presence should have no weight on these devices. It might be another balance mechanism against the huge versatility, a realism factor, or just an in-built challenge but there are two "karb-electric" parts as well. A tiny generator/fuel cell: 0.1 Karb -> 30 Ec/s and a 2.5m generator: I think 1 Karb/s -> 500 EC/s.

[eddiew]

Reworking my Niven lander for my weird 1x+3.2x config... 

Basically the transfer stage didn't change one iota (teeheehee...). Transfer to Niven costs less than regular 3.2x, transfer home costs more (I don't know why...). Overall it's in the same sort of territory. 

The lander itself can lose some height, with the grey fuel tank coming down to its smallest, as well as the nacelles. It's overspecced by about 900m/s, but it's TWR isn't great and I suspect that'll be required.

The biggest change is the launch stage, which drops from a 5m core + 4x3.75m SRB, down to a shorter 5m rocket without boosters.

So yeah, initial impressions, this setup:

1. encourages motherships, big transfer stages, and Apollo style orbiter+lander missions
2. lets you lift those big things to orbit without breaking the top of the VAB
3. allows spaceplanes to do your lifting if you want them to

By and large, I'm feeling more positive about this because it's playing to my interests again  

Also thanks for the texture tips @Tynrael, that's indeed taken a chunk off my startup memory use and I'm now down to "just" 6.8gb at the menu   Should give me a bit more breathing room before the memory crash kicks in. Or more likely I'll install a couple of plane parts mods and have exactly the same time between restarts. On the up side, this is largely the only thing that gets me away from the game at the weekend, so it keeps me hydrated and fed...

@Galileo - maybe worth linking @Tynrael's texture replacements on the front page? There's bound to be folks out there with 8-16gb memory who would benefit  

Edited February 14, 2017 by eddiew

[Moggiog]

Is there a way to get KSC++ to work with the rescaling? Like, editing the config files.

[Galileo]

36 minutes ago, Moggiog said:

Is there a way to get KSC++ to work with the rescaling? Like, editing the config files.

Currently the only thing you can do is change the building size in the rescale cfg. It looks fine in 3.2x but looks funny any bigger than that. There was something in the works to fix this iirc but I don't know if it still is. Maybe @Sigma88 can shed some light on the subject 

Edited February 14, 2017 by Galileo

[Sigma88]

2 hours ago, Galileo said:

Currently the only thing you can do is change the building size in the rescale cfg. It looks fine in 3.2x but looks funny any bigger than that. There was something in the works to fix this iirc but I don't know if it still is. Maybe @Sigma88 can shed some light on the subject 

The issue is that buildings are spawned on fixed long-lat coords

On a bigger planet those coords are farther apart from each other, meaning clusters of buildings get spread on a bigger area.

 

There are 2 solutions:

1- scale the size of the buildings, so that they are farther apart but also bigger. Meaning the relative distance is maintained correctly

2- use the grouping tool from SD to group multiple buildings together. SD will handle the movement of the buildings

[Akke_Pakke]

Hey, I have a problem with GPP with RemoteTech. All the ground bases are on Icarus rather than Gael. I've tried switching the body number in the cfg. file but nothing changes? Is there a way to make RT work with GPP? Thanks.

[4d4Garrison]

So Hox's moon Argo seems to have surface eruptions and or gaseous releases. Maybe it had some bad tacos.  

I need to get closer. This small two body system is quite beautiful in a dull, icy, grey sort of way.

Wow just wow! You guys have truly outdone yourselves with this. Looks how beautiful argo's eruptions are!

Edited February 14, 2017 by 4d4Garrison

[4d4Garrison]

MUST

SEND

LANDING PARTY!

I also dropped a lander onto HOX but forgot to park any science instruments - oh well it only took 37 years to get here.

Edited February 14, 2017 by 4d4Garrison

[Galileo]

2 hours ago, Akke_Pakke said:

Hey, I have a problem with GPP with RemoteTech. All the ground bases are on Icarus rather than Gael. I've tried switching the body number in the cfg. file but nothing changes? Is there a way to make RT work with GPP? Thanks.

If you make changes to, you will have to delete your MM cache and then start a new game. Took me forever to figure out why my RT changes weren't happening.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Galileo

[Akira_R]

On 2/13/2017 at 3:26 PM, eddiew said:

@Tynrael, thanks, I'll have a read later when I'm at my desktop (and sober ).

My game starts up around 7.3gb at the menu, but quickly balloons upwards during play. Lucky if I get 90 minutes before it passes 10gb and hits the "restart me now or I shall restart myself" mark. Would love to know why, but there's never anything written to the log to tell me which particular mod is at fault   Some day I'll pull out everything that isn't vital (i.e. a part on a current vessel) and see if I can find the offender, but until then anything that can drop the memory load is welcome

...to be fair, performance gets worse as memory use gets higher, so it's always good to minimise!

How much RAM do you have? It may be that while KSP is only using 10Gb your system is using the rest so that's why it crashes. I actually just purchased a second 16Gb kit because I started getting out of RAM crashes while loading after installing a new mod. My install is now chewing up 19.8Gb at the main menu  I'm so happy we now have x64 support, and it is remarkably stable, I haven't had any crashes since installing the new RAM even with 3+ hour marathon sessions.

[eddiew]

5 minutes ago, Akira_R said:

How much RAM do you have? It may be that while KSP is only using 10Gb your system is using the rest so that's why it crashes. I actually just purchased a second 16Gb kit because I started getting out of RAM crashes while loading after installing a new mod. My install is now chewing up 19.8Gb at the main menu  I'm so happy we now have x64 support, and it is remarkably stable, I haven't had any crashes since installing the new RAM even with 3+ hour marathon sessions.

32gb. It's nowhere near full, so I have no idea why KSP crashes at 10.5... Occasionally it reaches 11, sometimes it bombs at 9.9. Every stability test I run reckons my PC is rock solid. My uptime between reboots is typically in the region of 20 days, and there are no bluescreens ever. I suspect it's a mod at fault, but I don't know which one   I have stripped out the ones that I can do without to test it, but ironically I'm now having a hard time passing the 10gb barrier and getting into the danger zone  

That said, it does force me to prioritise mods and pick only the ones I will actually use... even when it's not crashing, performance does seem to go downhill as memory use creeps up. I suspect I'd have annoyingly low fps at 20gb.

Edited February 14, 2017 by eddiew

[Akira_R]

12 minutes ago, eddiew said:

32gb. It's nowhere near full, so I have no idea why KSP crashes at 10.5... Occasionally it reaches 11, sometimes it bombs at 9.9. Every stability test I run reckons my PC is rock solid. My uptime between reboots is typically in the region of 20 days, and there are no bluescreens ever. I suspect it's a mod at fault, but I don't know which one   I have stripped out the ones that I can do without to test it, but ironically I'm now having a hard time passing the 10gb barrier and getting into the danger zone  

hmmm, that is terribly unfortunate... I have a pretty extensive mod list, I could PM you with it to cross-reference and help narrow down the culprit, don't wanna clutter up Galileo's thread any more.

[eddiew]

8 minutes ago, Akira_R said:

hmmm, that is terribly unfortunate... I have a pretty extensive mod list, I could PM you with it to cross-reference and help narrow down the culprit, don't wanna clutter up Galileo's thread any more.

Wouldn't hurt, please do   Although there are some mods would result in the loss of crewed vessels, I could lose the probes without much lost sleep...

[CatastrophicFailure]

On 2/13/2017 at 2:15 PM, Tynrael said:

It is super simple, I have it setup right now as 2 folders (1 for Stock Planets 1 for IVA interiors, I never do IVA and its a free ~119MB). Copy over the TextureReplacer folder and it will add the tiny textures. Since they are swapped out when KSP starts you don't have to worry about anything being messed with. You do of course, need Texture Replacer

Screenshot? Any change in the game's appearance from this?

[Galileo]

15 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Screenshot? Any change in the game's appearance from this?

There won't be any change at all in appearance. you don't actually see the small 1x1 textures at all. They just replaces the stock textures that render in the background and use memory. I may actually implement this idea next update. 

Edited February 15, 2017 by Galileo

[Tynrael]

26 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Screenshot? Any change in the game's appearance from this?

The pink is great for swapping textures because you can easily tell you have replaced it (in case they were used elsewhere this would make that show right up when you saw it)! The IVA might just be for me and seeing Jeb with a pink background during a launch made me remember the last time I did this I made the IVA textures black. But the IVA may just be for me   

For GPP with all the stock planets and sun removed there should be nothing to miss like Galileo said for overwriting the stock planet textures. 1x1 textures may work but mine are 4x4 because DDS dimensions need to be in multiples of 4. It would make a whole lot of sense for this idea to be implemented in the next release.

I did track down the biggest culprit for RAM usage in my pack, it isn't the 118 other mods, it is GPP with full texture quality haha. GPP alone (with Kopernicus and ModularFlight dependencies) adds over 6.75GB to stock for me.