[Discontinued][1.1.x to 1.9.x] How to improve Performance

[Gr@y]

1 hour ago, Curveball Anders said:

Instead of trying to tweak and mod windoze you could just ditch it

All tweaks and mods just slow down windoze

[TheEnderman]

wow this helped! especially setting the priority to high, that made a MASSIVE difference for me.

[Gr@y]

Just another option to mod users. Usually, moders are using very large textures. For example, 2k texture weights about 20Mb, to comparision, 1k texture is about 5 Mb and most of time you will not see any difference between them.

Just shrink large textures in half and you will get <5 minutes to main menu.

[pmborg]

Hello all,

I am relatively new on this forum but I have being using KSP in a very intense way in the last 8 months.

I really don't understand why kerbal space program say those Hardware requirements, and suggestions on that low-end hardware, the idea is make it slow!?

Of course not, but they should point at least in my opinion for one Minimum version, 2 Medium versions and 2 High-end versions.

There are some bugs related with mode screen changes, between screen resolution and view port, that is basic I don't know why that was not solved, from a developer point of view.

 

Now related with the KSP performance I personally have 3 or 4 instances of KSP in order to allow me to boot fast when I want and do a full load mods when is needed.

My original 1.7.2: (Zero MODs)

https://imgur.com/VpOcUSh My original 1.7.3: (Zero MODs)

https://imgur.com/aZgwEfk

 

Edited July 20, 2019 by pmborg

[pmborg]

Here my loading experience without mods:

 

[pmborg]

Computer Specs:

Motherboard	Asus MAXIMUS IX CODE  (all builds)
Memory	13.4 GB free of 16 GB @ 2.1 GHz
Display	1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OS	Windows 10

UserBenchmarks: Game 105%, Desk 102%, Work 82%

OC BOARD: (Automatic BOARD BIOS OC for all System)
OC CPU: Intel Core i7-7700K - 117.6%
OC GPU: Nvidia GTX 1070 - 103.7%
SSD: Kingston SSDNow V300 240GB - 52.7%
SSD: Toshiba DT01ACA200 480GB - 72.1%
SSD: Crucial BX200 480GB - 92.7%
HDD: Toshiba DT01ACA200 2TB - 80.4%
HDD: Seagate M3 Portable 4TB - 22.4%
USB: WD Elements 10B8 1.5TB - 20.9%
USB: ST1000LM 024 HN-M101M 1TB - 17.1%
RAM: G.SKILL F4 DDR4 4000 C18 2x8GB - 73.7%
MBD: Asus MAXIMUS IX CODE

More details:

https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/18585655

[xXKSP_playerXx]

Thank you for the input/data. 

[Beetlecat]

On 7/20/2019 at 2:50 PM, pmborg said:

Here my loading experience without mods:

 

Without mods--- except for Module Manager? ;D

[pmborg]

Yes, only with the dll of Module Manager on root and DLCs only.

[rettter3]

Hey there,

I just decided to upgrade my system with a new CPU.

I'd like to know whether anybody has any experiences and could tell me whether to better get an R7-3800x or an i9-9900k .

I saddly d'ont have any experience with these, so I wanted to know, whether you guys could give me some tips (my CPU is an FX-6300 at the moment).

Thank you in advance

 

 

(Sorry for my bad english, it's not my native language)

[tsaven]

2 hours ago, rettter3 said:

Hey there,

I just decided to upgrade my system with a new CPU.

I'd like to know whether anybody has any experiences and could tell me whether to better get an R7-3800x or an i9-9900k .

I saddly d'ont have any experience with these, so I wanted to know, whether you guys could give me some tips (my CPU is an FX-6300 at the moment).

Thank you in advance

 

 

(Sorry for my bad english, it's not my native language)

For this game an i9 or even i7 is pointless.  You'll get nearly identical performance with an i5-9600K,  and it's half the price.

Kerbal Space Program performance is almost singularly dependent on single-thread speed, which depends mostly on the clock rate of the processor. If you really want maximum KSP performance, get an i5-9600K and spend the money on a decent water-cooling kit to overclock the hell out of it.

[vossiewulf]

1 hour ago, tsaven said:

For this game an i9 or even i7 is pointless.  You'll get nearly identical performance with an i5-9600K,  and it's half the price.

Kerbal Space Program performance is almost singularly dependent on single-thread speed, which depends mostly on the clock rate of the processor. If you really want maximum KSP performance, get an i5-9600K and spend the money on a decent water-cooling kit to overclock the hell out of it.

Or solve KSP and all other issues by getting a 9900k and water cooling it and overclocking it to 5.1Ghz. That's the machine I just built for myself, along with a RTX2080 for other games and apps that is useless for KSP. 

I need the machine HP for other purposes, not just games. You're right that a KSP-specific build could be much cheaper with a less expensive CPU and 32Gb of the fastest RAM the motherboard will support.

[tsaven]

46 minutes ago, vossiewulf said:

Or solve KSP and all other issues by getting a 9900k and water cooling it and overclocking it to 5.1Ghz. That's the machine I just built for myself, along with a RTX2080 for other games and apps that is useless for KSP. 

I need the machine HP for other purposes, not just games. You're right that a KSP-specific build could be much cheaper with a less expensive CPU and 32Gb of the fastest RAM the motherboard will support.

I know the i9 is a different beast, but at least with the prior generation the only difference between the i5 and i7 was the addition of Hyperthreading, which doesn't make a nutsack's worth of difference for most games at all.  It's still questionable if adding another couple of cores for the i9 is really worth it either, given how few applications will still take advantage of it.

But they do give a giant e-peens to wave around at your local LAN party, so that's gotta count for something.

Edited September 11, 2019 by tsaven

[vossiewulf]

2 hours ago, tsaven said:

I know the i9 is a different beast, but at least with the prior generation the only difference between the i5 and i7 was the addition of Hyperthreading, which doesn't make a nutsack's worth of difference for most games at all.  It's still questionable if adding another couple of cores for the i9 is really worth it either, given how few applications will still take advantage of it.

But they do give a giant e-peens to wave around at your local LAN party, so that's gotta count for something.

(waves around giant e-peens)

I'm a little past that actually, the machine is built for modeling and rendering performance, the games performance is a secondary advantage. In fact looking at the preferred 3dMark benchmarks, it seems like they're all 3d card and the CPU is almost meaningless, I think you could hook up an i5 to an RTX2080 and be only slightly below an i9 running the same card. The days of CPU being important to average users, even most gamers, seems to have gone by the wayside.

[rettter3]

Thanks a lot  for all your quick replies.

[Eogen]

Apologies for the resurrection, but I thought this might save someone a few cycles of frustration.

I spent a lot of time debugging performance issues, and it turns out that one mod in particular was responsible for my problem: Trajectories. 

 

In the dialog for that mod, they warn you if you are having performance issues, turn on caching in the settings for the trajectory mod.  Took me from <20 fps back to 120.  I am a big fan of the mod, but the difference in performance was staggering.

[philbo724]

On 5/9/2020 at 11:15 PM, Eogen said:

Apologies for the resurrection, but I thought this might save someone a few cycles of frustration.

I spent a lot of time debugging performance issues, and it turns out that one mod in particular was responsible for my problem: Trajectories. 

 

In the dialog for that mod, they warn you if you are having performance issues, turn on caching in the settings for the trajectory mod.  Took me from <20 fps back to 120.  I am a big fan of the mod, but the difference in performance was staggering.

Thank you very much for tracking this one down.  Disabling Trajectories seems to have given me back about 50 fps.  I was getting less than 20.  Same as you.

[Delta Space]

This might be a weird question since this thread is about wanting more performance... But I have a GTX 1650 and can play at 1080p with every setting at max, at 60 frames per second with Astronomers Visual Pack, which to my knowledge is the most demanding EVE mod out there. With SVE+Scatterer I can get even more, about 80-90 FPS, but the posted minimum for SVE+Scatterer at 1080p is a 1660, which is about 60% faster than my 1650, and I wouldn't consider 60 FPS a "Minimum" at all.

I'm obviously not complaining, just a bit confused. I thought I would have to dial some settings back, but I don't need to at all...

[xXKSP_playerXx]

On 8/4/2020 at 12:14 AM, Delta Space said:

I'm obviously not complaining, just a bit confused. I thought I would have to dial some settings back, but I don't need to at all...

It looks like you haven't played older KSP versions they sucked in that aspect the newer ones are very optimized. Also its mostly only relevant with large crafts.

[Miguelsgamingch]

Ok, When I Try -force-opengl And Start, Its Black With My Cursor, Im sure its a problem with the game, I Have OpenGL32.dll installed.

then i tried -force-d3d11 and did nothing. no addtional frame rate, oh and no graphical glitches.

 

[Commodore_32]

Guys, can I have a non-outdated guide on forcing OpenGL?

I want to know if I can push over 30FPS

[Miguelsgamingch]

Just now, Commodore_32 said:

Guys, can I have a non-outdated guide on forcing OpenGL?

I want to know if I can push over 30FPS

When I Did Go -force-opengl It Went 160 FPS

[Commodore_32]

Just now, miguelsgamingch said:

When I Did Go -force-opengl It Went 160 FPS

Cool, if that happens to me I will enable shadows again, so, any guide? (That I can understand please)

[Miguelsgamingch]

Just now, Commodore_32 said:

Cool, if that happens to me I will enable shadows again, so, any guide? (That I can understand please)

Not Worth It, It will be black screen with your cursor only.

[Commodore_32]

Just now, miguelsgamingch said:

Not Worth It, It will be black screen with your cursor only.

but can I try pls,