How much RAM do you have?

[LusBax]

My laptop came with 8 GB of RAM. While it is more than enough to run stock, my stupid ass installed 60+ mods. And you know, when you install your first mod, you just can't go back to stock. Of course i had multiple crashes and I couldn't run copernicous and KSPIE, but i always thought it was because of weak integrated graphics. However, i recently got additional 4 GB from a friend, and boy oh boy does it make a difference. It can easily run Kerbal Star Systems, KSPIE and 80+ other mods, and i am just so happy.

So, how much do you have and what are your experiences?

[Geonovast]

I have 32 GB.  KSP has gotten up to about 20 GB usage, but it's usually only around 6-7.  I have about 60-70 mods usually.

[GDJ]

16 GB of DDR4. That's all I can stuff in a 2012 Mac Mini.

However, I bought RAM that had the lowest latency numbers and the fastest the motherboard can handle. It helps.

[Curveball Anders]

8GB which works without an issue.

The game can be a bit sluggish if I play for very long, or jump around between different ships a lot.

But then I just restart.

[Hotel26]

15 hours ago, LusBax said:

And you know, when you install your first mod, you just can't go back to stock.

Same as Curveball Anders except that my production world has around 300 flights in it, so it gets into swap territory sooner.  It's definitely the scene changes that tick up memory.  I keep a system monitor open to know when to restart KSP before swap time, though.

I only have 10 or so mods.  I don't install mods gratuitously, but keep them very limited.  Nothing is free[*].

I've truly been thinking about more memory.  This motherboard is maxed at 8GB, so it's gonna have to be a new build, probably going up to DDR4, as well.  I'm not quite ready to spend those bucks, though.

[*] My laptop has 32GB, though.    It became company surplus when it reached 5 years of age so, when I left that company recently, it was given to me.  (OK, well that was "free", or "good will", anyway..)

 

Edited January 6, 2019 by Hotel26

[linuxgurugamer]

I play with 250 mods, game regularly used 20 gig.  My system now has 64 gig

[eddiew]

32gb, since before the game had reliable 64 bit  

I don't know how people do anything with less than 16... 

[Gapone]

4 gb. always ~10fps. somebody cheer me.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

16Gb, never had any issue with any game using too much except "The Forest" which must have some kind of serious memory leak because I would have to restart it ever 2-3 hours as the RAM use crept up and up and up, even past 16Gb which would make the game begin to stutter. (Most I saw reported in task manager was like 27Gb/16Gb? Not even sure how that's possible lol.)

Edited January 6, 2019 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Fraktal]

1 hour ago, Gapone said:

4 gb. always ~10fps. somebody cheer me.

Same here, although my FPS isn't quite that bad (I'm running KSP on a 13 months old laptop with a quad-core CPU and a decently good GPU) and remains playable for 4-5 hours before chugging down so badly it takes the game 15 minutes to exit and the clock is constantly running in the yellow even in vacuum at no movement and no warp, even if I have literally nothing running in the background. I do not use any parts mods and only use PlanetShine and a low-spec config for EVE in terms of visuals, but it's bad enough that I'm actually reluctant to look for support when I'm having problems with mods because I'm fully expecting the modder to tell me off for wasting their time with such a low-spec config that shouldn't even be trying to run KSP in the first place.

[Gapone]

2 hours ago, Fraktal said:

Same here, although my FPS isn't quite that bad (I'm running KSP on a 13 months old laptop with a quad-core CPU and a decently good GPU) and remains playable for 4-5 hours before chugging down so badly it takes the game 15 minutes to exit and the clock is constantly running in the yellow even in vacuum at no movement and no warp, even if I have literally nothing running in the background. I do not use any parts mods and only use PlanetShine and a low-spec config for EVE in terms of visuals, but it's bad enough that I'm actually reluctant to look for support when I'm having problems with mods because I'm fully expecting the modder to tell me off for wasting their time with such a low-spec config that shouldn't even be trying to run KSP in the first place.

WOW THE SAME TO ME... except I use only basic scatterer for atmo, and it gives decent FPS while no atmospheric bodies are into view. To exit I just end process, leaves pretty quickly

Edited January 6, 2019 by Gapone

[RealKerbal3x]

6GB. Runs fine with 30-40 mods.

I used to have a laptop with 4GB, and the FPS was always <10.

[Epicdreamer]

6Gb of RAM on a i5 laptop. I usually play with 20-30 mods. Mostly Kopernikus, a planet pack, a few parts mods and some bits and pieces. No system heavy mods. Eve works fine, but I have banned scatterer and visual packs after trying them once.

No issues really. Fps is good for my liking. Stability as well, but indeed a restart is needed on longer sessions due to memory overload...nothing I can't live with....and something to look out for when I need to replace my hardware (visuals!)

[Lapis]

8 gigs with about 6 mods, AMD radeon graphics card and Athlon 2 cpu. ksp runs fine (with a little bit of fps drops every few hours)

[Agustin]

8GB of RAM

GT 720 2GB (not good)

I5 3.00 Ghz

Playing RSS/RO/PRINCIPIA/RP-1 With some part mods quite fluidly even with passable grpahics. good performance. A lot of tweaking here and there to get this performance.