Squad should STOP ALL development and do this now

[linuxgurugamer]

54 minutes ago, Dr. Boo said:

AGAIN,  I say the same thing... make the program in general work better. Better memory and cpu management.  Make mods better and easier to integrate . The MODDER is best thing this program has going for it. This program would be worth $50 if it work correctly all the time, and had a better look and feel. Compare it to other titles that run on PC and it is on the low end of performance, and on the high end on memory usage. I am using like 40gb of ram, of course I use a few mods. There is something wrong when a program like this takes 40gb of ram, and you have programs like EVE that take up a third.

Plain, vanilla KSP only uses  3-4 gig.  If you are using 40, then you have a LOT of mods installed.

Some things are impossible to change.  For example, memory & cpu management are a combination of both C# and Unity.

Regarding mods, it's rather late, but in general, if a set of modding standards had been made and published, then the modding landscape would be easier

Just an FYI, I run about 250 mods, and only uses about 20-25gig.

And regarding Eve, mods are forbidden in Eve.  If you are going to make a comparison, make a valid comparison

[Geonovast]

2 hours ago, Dr. Boo said:

There is something wrong when a program like this takes 40gb of ram, and you have programs like EVE that take up a third.

 

1 hour ago, linuxgurugamer said:

And regarding Eve, mods are forbidden in Eve.  If you are going to make a comparison, make a valid comparison

I think they mean Environmental Visual Enhancements.  Which, btw, does NOT take up 13 Gigs or RAM by itself.  I've run entire installs with EVE and about 50 other mods take an average of 6-7 total.

 

But that's besides the point.  If you mod KSP to the point of taking up 40 Gigs of RAM, the absolute LAST place you place the blame is on the devs of the core game.

 

[snip]

 

Anyone know a GOOD way to quote from multiple pages?

Edited May 12, 2019 by adsii1970
Removed a statement which could be considered infammatory.

[Gargamel]

59 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

Anyone know a GOOD way to quote from multiple pages?

Use the multi quote button

The [+] on the left.

[klgraham1013]

4 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

 

...to expect the developers to even read a post with such a click-bait title.

Also true.

[adsii1970]

Ok, folks, this thread is starting to become a heated place. While there is plenty of room for disagreement about what Squad should do next, there's no reason the conversation cannot remain civil. Snarky comments which could be considered as provoking a reaction out of other forum members have been removed.

Play nice, be polite and treat others the way you want to be treated.

 

[Dr. Boo]

13 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Plain, vanilla KSP only uses  3-4 gig.  If you are using 40, then you have a LOT of mods installed.

Some things are impossible to change.  For example, memory & cpu management are a combination of both C# and Unity.

Regarding mods, it's rather late, but in general, if a set of modding standards had been made and published, then the modding landscape would be easier

Just an FYI, I run about 250 mods, and only uses about 20-25gig.

And regarding Eve, mods are forbidden in Eve.  If you are going to make a comparison, make a valid comparison

First yes no mods in EVE, and the game doesn't need them, and you can't design ships. But is a full universe that is always on with thousands of people and yet their client is very efficient.

Sure I understand that KSP is not EVE, physics for one. But without mods, we don't have clouds, tweakscale, mechjeb, scatter, konstructs, Docking, janitorcloset.... and many others that are really needed after a while. Something like hangar extended and yes, CLOUDS should no be an option, they should be standard. They should be part of game. Or If Squad just want to abdicate programming give the MOD makers better tools and information so they make them more efficient and quicker.

I don't have as many mods as you might think. And I don't have clouds any more. It slows thing down too much. I am running the game on a Ubuntu Notebook with 16gb of ram and a very large swap and ssd.  It is very slow to load, it take about 30 minutes or more. It needs to go through every mode every time. Version 1.6 works alot better than 1.5

And now all the developers are moving to 1.7 but I am still on 1.61 And will be here for a while before all the mods have moved over.

linuxgurugamer, do you get information from Squad to make the building of mods, or the integration better. Why does everything single version change require mod makers to reprogram the whole thing. SO many lost mods because the mod makers get tired. Squad seems not to be taking advantage of the wonderful mod maker community. Do they give you advance notice of chances so you can better plan your updates.?

Anyway, I love the game and just wish if was more mature in some ways.

 

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, Dr. Boo said:

Why does everything single version change require mod makers to reprogram the whole thing.

It doesn't. A lot of mods for 1.4 still work fine in 1.7. My (very simple) mod WarpEverywhere has worked unedited since 1.1.3, and unrecompiled since 1.4.3. I didn't need to recompile it back then but did so anyway due to the Unity engine change.

A lot of mods complain, but work just fine anyway. "I'm for a different version!" messages are very different than actually being broken.

Edited May 13, 2019 by 5thHorseman

[linuxgurugamer]

6 hours ago, Dr. Boo said:

First yes no mods in EVE, and the game doesn't need them, and you can't design ships. But is a full universe that is always on with thousands of people and yet their client is very efficient.

No mods in EVE, which means that the developers don't have to worry about an unknown mod doing strange things.

The client is just that, a client, which can do nothing by itself.  EVE Online has a backend of servers, which from the accounts I've read is very impressive; and that is where all the CPU power goes.  The client is nothing more than a display client which communicates with the servers.  All models & textures are in the client, optimized by the developers because they know exactly what environment they are targeting.

6 hours ago, Dr. Boo said:

KSP is not EVE, physics for one

And there is where the big difference is.  In EVE Online, a ship is a single point, which moves as if it was in soup, with top speeds limited, etc.

6 hours ago, Dr. Boo said:

I don't have as many mods as you might think.

Well, you said "40 gig", and either you have a humongous number of part mods or something else going on;  last night with 114 mods installed (including EVE, etc) my game was using about 20 gig.  Why don't you provide a list of the mods you have installed, maybe someone can make a suggestion to help alleviate the memory issue.

6 hours ago, Dr. Boo said:

16gb of ram and a very large swap and ssd

With that little memory, you really shouldn't be using that many mods.  And you should not be using the swap, that is causing your extreme slowdowns.  You should minimize the swap usage as much as possible.

6 hours ago, Dr. Boo said:

And now all the developers are moving to 1.7 but I am still on 1.61 And will be here for a while before all the mods have moved over

Most mods which work on 1.6 will also work on 1.7 unchanged.

6 hours ago, Dr. Boo said:

Why does everything single version change require mod makers to reprogram the whole thing. SO many lost mods because the mod makers get tired

Well, in the early days the engine and environment were being changed constantly.  However, since 1.4.5, it's been very stable.  Most mods for 1.4.5, 1.5.1, and 1.6.1 will work on 1.7.  As they make changes and improvements (and yes, bug fixes), sometimes things need to change.  If you want a fixed environment, then the game will never progress

And my understanding is that many other games do the same thing, especially when in Early Access.  This is the only game I've modded, so I can't speak from experience.  But after seeing similar questions (and answers from others)  many times here, the general answer is that this is not uncommon.  Maybe someone else who has some knowledge in this can reply with some more detail.

See the message from @5thHorseman:

4 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

It doesn't. A lot of mods for 1.4 still work fine in 1.7. My (very simple) mod WarpEverywhere has worked unedited since 1.1.3, and unrecompiled since 1.4.3. I didn't need to recompile it back then but did so anyway due to the Unity engine change.

A lot of mods complain, but work just fine anyway. "I'm for a different version!" messages are very different than actually being broken

  The complaint from most mods is the KSP-AVC,or MiniAVC mod bundled with many mods.  It's informational only, and is based on a text file in the mod's directory.  In fact, you can now get rid of those by installing the latest KSP-AVC and ZeroMiniAVC mods, there is an option in KSP-AVC which you can mark mods as good for the current version; ZeroMiniAVC will delete all MiniAVC.dll files it can find.

6 hours ago, Dr. Boo said:

Do they give you advance notice of chances so you can better plan your updates.?

 

This is a hard question to answer, because I can't answer it.  Anyone who gets advance knowledge of a game usually has to sign an NDA, which says they can't talk about it, and shouldn't even make people aware that they do have advance knowledge.  So of course I'll answer NO, but ask that question of other people, and you will have no way to know if their "NO" is real or is the result of an NDA which they can't say they've signed.

That being said, I'll say that I'm still using 1.6.1 as my development target for most mod at this time.  I usually don't switch over to the next release for a few months.

Edited May 13, 2019 by linuxgurugamer

[Snark]

A bunch of posts have been removed due to completely derailing the topic of the thread, going into completely off-topic areas such as,

• the perceived merits (or lack thereof) of various computer companies
• the cost of computers
• "kids today"
• discussion of mods that have nothing to do with clouds
• debugging tips for various specific mods

Just a friendly reminder:  This is a suggestion thread about adding clouds to KSP.  If you have a comment that relates to that, then that's what this thread is about.  If you'd like to talk about some other topic, then kindly take it to a different thread, because that's not what this topic is about.

In addition, a useful-but-lengthy back-and-forth discussion of logging feedback items to the Squad bug tracker has been split off into its own thread, since that's really a separate topic from this suggestion.

Thank you for your understanding.

[Dr. Boo]

On 3/25/2019 at 5:30 PM, Lisias said:

Wha's "heavy" on KSP is not the graphics, but the physics engine. Each single part you strap on your craft is a "entity", with tis own rules and physics properties. And the KSP core needs to calculate the physics and movements for every part, and then cascade the effects on the attached parts.

In a example: the engine has a mass, an ISP and a thrust. Once KSP determines if the engine have the fuel to work, the thrust is applied to the engine (subtracted its mass 'weight'). The engine, so, "pushes" whatever it is attached, than so needs to have the current weight subtracted from the force. Whatever remains of that force is applied to the part in which it is attached. Fuel tanks needs to have the weight recalculated once its fuel is used by the engine, and then the process starts again in a loop. This is what happens on the "fixedUpdate" Unity callback, by the way,

(and I didn't even touched atmospheric flight - see my example as what happens when you are in deep space, so far away from the nearest Reference Frame that its effect on you is negligible)

I don't know about Simple Planes, but I'm pretty familiar to Orbiter. In Orbiter, each whole craft is handled as KSP handles a single part. So, a vessel on KSP with 130 parts is way more CPU intensive than an Orbiter running 130 concurrent vessels (in Orbiter, you only collide to the ground - there're no collisions between vessels!!).

Wind is simple to implement - it's a Force Vector that you applies to the resulting craft's movement vector. KSP doesn't have it by design. It's not a "expensive" feature, Squad just choose it doesn't fits on their vision on the Game. Since I got some Private Pilot lessons as young (also have a license as small boat's master - believe me, I know about navigation) , I can understand why they did it.

I don't know about Simple Planes, but if they choose a hybrid approach between Orbiter and KSP (i.e., they cooked up a kind of "compiler" that weld all that parts into a single one), they saved some serious CPU juice on that. And then could use the sparing CPU to make clouds - assuming they are "clouding" the same way Scatterer is - there're some ways to paint clouds on the screen - but most of them are terribly ugly on flight simulators . I'm a Flight Simulator addict since the 80's (yeah, I played Flight Simulator 1 e 2.0 - used the latest on some Pilot lessons, by the way), and I can tell you for sure: "cheap" clouds would make KSP looks bad.

Yes thank you for great detail... Now I know why my planes/spaceship get kraken all the time. Ok, so what about adding welding into game so we can reduce part counts... Then this should top priority.

[SlinkyMcman]

4 hours ago, Dr. Boo said:

Yes thank you for great detail... Now I know why my planes/spaceship get kraken all the time. Ok, so what about adding welding into game so we can reduce part counts... Then this should top priority.

Then you wouldn't get ships that explode into each individual part.

Edited May 14, 2019 by SlinkyMcman

[BABLBAM]

On 3/16/2019 at 8:01 AM, RealKerbal3x said:

No there aren’t. Some mods add them though.

Eve does have oceans, are you sure you’re not mixing them up?

Sorry I saw it in video but when I visited Eve on my own I haven't seen any clouds.