Which Version of KSP was the most stable?

[Alpha 360]

I have decided to revamp a current save. It crashes every 30 minutes consistently and the frame-rate with a craft below 300 parts is like 20. My computer might be bad, but I still take that unacceptable. I am using 1.3.1 as my version, and I have heard reports that 1.2 was one of the most stable versions of the game. I'm willing to downgrade a bit for the sake of a good frame-rate. 

Just a few specifics:

1. I am using KSP 86x so I would think it has good processing.

2. I do have something like 50 or 60 mods installed presently.

3. I have a Lenovo with 6 Gs of Ram and a Core 13. Don't know exactly what the later means, but I put it up because it is something I know about my computer.  

Happy Explosions. 

Edited March 23, 2018 by Alpha 360

[linuxgurugamer]

I play with over 200 mods for hours at a time without and crashes.

what are your computer specs, what mods do you have installed, and how old is your computer?

[Alpha 360]

I just edited some of that stuff in.

 

To answer the question of the age of my computer, its about 3 months old. 

[Geonovast]

14 minutes ago, Alpha 360 said:

I have a Lenovo with 6 Gs of Ram and a Core 13

Doesn't help too much.

Laptop/Desktop?

Core i3? (not 13 ) which model specifically?

Do you have a dedicated graphics card (I'm guessing no with an i3)

 

If this thing's a laptop with a low-end i3 (and therefore low clock speed), that's probably going to be an issue.  20 fps with a 300 part craft is not terrible.

I doubt your crashing problem is 1.3.1.  You stated you're using the 32 bit version of KSP with 50 or 60 mods.  You're probably hitting the 4Gb process limit and crashing out.  Use the 64 bit version.  The taboo around the 64 bit version has been moot for a long time.

Edited March 23, 2018 by Geonovast

[linuxgurugamer]

17 minutes ago, Alpha 360 said:

1. I am using KSP 86x so I would think it has good processing.

This is your problem.  You are limited to a theoretical 4 gig of memory, in reality its a bit lower than that.

You are hitting the memory limit, as well as poorer performance.  Use the 64 bit version, you will gail both stability and performance.

[Alpha 360]

1 minute ago, Geonovast said:

If this thing's a laptop with a low-end i3 (and therefore low clock speed), that's probably going to be the issue.

Yes, its a laptop. Granted a larger an average on but still a laptop. 

2 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

You stated you're using the 32 bit version of KSP with 50 or 60 mods

17 minutes ago, Alpha 360 said:

I am using KSP 86x

So, is the 86 bit version of KSP really the 32 bit version in disguise? That threw me off when I installed it all.  

Thanks for the information. I will re-install KSP, definitely in the 64 bit version. But, didn't some of the different updates decrease and increase stability significantly? 

Happy Explosions

[linuxgurugamer]

Also, maybe remove ome or two of the large parts mod you probably have installed would help

[Geonovast]

Just now, Alpha 360 said:

Thanks for the information. I will re-install KSP, definitely in the 64 bit version. But, didn't some of the different updates decrease and increase stability significantly? 

Yes.... but when you've got several dozen mods installed, the absolute last thing you blame for crashes is KSP itself.  If you remove all the mods, and it still crashes, then you troubleshoot KSP.  Always start with the mods.

@linuxgurugamer does janitor's closet prevent the unwanted parts from being loaded at start?  Would that help in this case?

 

[linuxgurugamer]

2 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

@linuxgurugamer does janitor's closet prevent the unwanted parts from being loaded at start?  Would that help in this case?

If the parts are PermaPruned, then yes.

4 minutes ago, Alpha 360 said:

So, is the 86 bit version of KSP really the 32 bit version in disguise? That threw me off when I installed it all.

Not in disguise, that's just what it is.  The 64 bit has "64" in the name

[devoid]

22 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

If the parts are PermaPruned, then yes.

Not in disguise, that's just what it is.  The 64 bit has "64" in the name

People get confused a lot because software is released named 32bit or 64bit, but you can also name them by architecture x86 or x86_64(or sometimes AMD64)

 

[Tyko]

a couple other things...

Try starting with Stock and making sure you don't have crashing. Then add mods a couple at a time. You may find that one of your mods is causing issues

Also, 6GB of RAM is low for 50-60 mods. Make sure you don't have any other applications running and check how much RAM KSP is using. It loads the entire game into RAM when you start it, so every mod you add causes KSP to use more RAM.

 

[Cydonian Monk]

I agree with others - you really need to be using the 64-bit version, or cut back on mods and/or texture resolution. My main KSP install runs at around 9GBs of memory usage; it wouldn’t even load in the x86_32 version.

To answer the question in your title: In my experience KSP v0.23.5 was the most stable version. I don’t recall v0.23.5 ever crashing. (Post-release I’d probably say v1.0.5, but I only played that using the 64-bit “hack”, which for me was rock solid.)

Edited March 23, 2018 by Cydonian Monk

[Bill Phil]

For me 1.3.1 was the most stable I've ever seen. It was great.

I think you're problem is from the mods or the memory limit.

[IncongruousGoat]

3 hours ago, Alpha 360 said:

So, is the 86 bit version of KSP really the 32 bit version in disguise? That threw me off when I installed it all. 

The 86 in x86 doesn't mean 86-bit. In fact, that number has nothing to do with bit count. It refers to the (32-bit) x86 instruction set.

KSP x86_64 uses the x86_64 instruction set, which is the 64-bit version of x86.

[Lisias]

I noticed someone browsing this page and thought it could be a good idea to write a small essay about the subject - it's highly probable that someone looking for this information will drop here again.

The best KSP version for you will depend of some variables, so I will provide you with a few use cases and then my recommendation:

• You have a pretty crappy machine (Weak CPU, less than 8GB of ram, GPU with 1GB VRAM or less)
  • Go for KSP 1.4.3 (or even 1.3.1, if you have less then 4GB and a dual core).
  • KSP 1.4.5 introduced some PQS enhancements that ended up eating some VRAM, and if you are low on VRAM these features will backfire on you. Avoid it.
• If you have a somewhat decent machine, but not too much top notch - or you are engaging on long term careers and don't want to handle an infinite number os bugs and mishaps on KSP
  • Give 1.7.3 a try. The Robotics are not the most stable things in the World, but the rest of the system is pretty stable. 
  • And it's more featured than 1.4.x!
• You want the best visual experience, have a pretty decent machine and are not inclined on committing on long careers
  • KSP 1.12.5 is the one to go.
  • It's the most feature rich of all of them.
  • You will need to install some add'ons that fix a lot of KSP bugs, there's no way to play 1.12.5 without them.
  • Very few older Add'Ons will work fine with it, however - it's better not to install anything not stating explicitly compatibility to 1.12.x
• Some users reported KSP 1.10.1 to be pretty stable, and still compatible with a lot of older Add'Ons, you may want to give it a try if by some reason 1.12.5 doesn't works for you.

Different people will have different opinions, of course. So take these as they are: my 5 cents about the subject and not rules written on stone.

Good launchings!