0.17 concerns

[_Aramchek_]

Does hardware physx make a difference in performance? Has anyone done tests with similar computers with and without physx? (a computer with a physx enabled nvidia card VS. the same computer with a similar AMD card that does not support physx)?

Unfortunately the build of the unity engine the game is running on does not support gpu physx, the next build may support it though.

Physx runs on cpu in the game engine for the time being, and only on a single core.

The only way to get better performance is higher cpu clocks for now.

[Awaras]

Unfortunately the build of the unity engine the game is running on does not support gpu physx, the next build may support it though.

Physx runs on cpu in the game engine for the time being, and only on a single core.

The only way to get better performance is higher cpu clocks for now.

Thanks for clearing that up because I was seriously considering getting a new Nvidia card just for the physx...

Here's hoping that Squad is able to upgrade KSP to the new version of unity as soon as possible.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Awaras

[_Aramchek_]

Yeah, you're welcome. I'd hold off for the time being, if you can overclock your cpu you'll get better results for now, but mines at 4ghz and I still get slowdown on the launch pad with large ships.

Here's the info about Unity Physx.

http://physxinfo.com/news/2232/unity-3-0-engine-will-include-updated-physx-core/

http://unity3d.com/unity/whats-new/unity-3

No definitive answer is in the info that I can see.

[vexx32]

The Unity release info says:

"Texture compression is now multi-threaded for faster texture imports on multi-core computers."

But that's about it. The physics itself is not looking to be multithreaded :/

[bsalis]

Dont expect multi CPU or GPU or PPU support for PhysX anytime soon. I don't see it happening.

A simpler solution to lag for big rockets is to simply use less parts. That means bigger parts. Or the ability to meld multiple parts into one part from a physics perspective.

[jebbe]

I wouldn't worry about lagging too much: The game is still alpha, which means that the focus is on new features, not performance.

In software development, there's always a trade-off between nice, flexible code, and efficient but ugly code. The main problem with the latter is that while it's performing well, it is almost impossible to change (e.g. add features). On the other hand, a well coded flexible software has lots of room for optimization at a later stage, which would then shift it more towards efficient and ugly. Of course, having performance in mind during early development is a good thing, but when you have to choose between performance and flexibility, you always go for flexibility, because that decision can be undone later. But once you have a highly optimized code, you're pretty much stuck with what you have.

So once all the features are in the game, I would expect massive performance increases, mainly by optimizations to the sequential code, although parallelization (multi-core support) would be nice, too. But before the game is feature complete, I'd actually be worried if Squad spent too much effort on performance.

Edited September 2, 2012 by jebbe

[Elios]

Dont expect multi CPU or GPU or PPU support for PhysX anytime soon. I don't see it happening.

A simpler solution to lag for big rockets is to simply use less parts. That means bigger parts. Or the ability to meld multiple parts into one part from a physics perspective.

GPU support is a check box item for PhysX with nVidia GPUs any way so that dead easy to do

its purely a matter of turning it on on the dev end and making a check box for it in the settings

and Multicore/cpu is built in by default

PPU was phased out in favor of GPU even a low end 7x00 card is faster then any of the stand alone PPUs that came out

but that does leave AMD card owners stuck

it would still be nice to see hardware PhysX as an option as the game doesnt take much to run graphicly might as well use that power for some thing for us with high end and SLi setups

[spl1nt]

i agree with the sentiments of this thread... kerbal is an awesome game but i think the performance with even medium sized rockets could do with some work

im the first to admit i dont have the latest gear .. but to get lag in a game like this with core i5-2.8 and 16gb of ram with a 1gb hd6700 for me is dissapointing

i could be unfairly biased by longer existing games like orbiter

[RichieD76]

i have a intel i7-2600 8 core cpu running @ 3.4ghz. along with a 3gb Nvidia GeForce GT 545 graphics card connected to 12gb DDR3 ram and i still get lag when moving from the VAB to the launch pad

[EndlessWaves]

i have a dual core intel i3... and its in my gaming rig that i built for about 600 dollars back in 2011. dont slam dual cores, man!

It's dual cores that are laughing here, they have half of their performance while the users with similar performance quad cores only get a quarter of their performance.

Given the game seems to top out at roughly the same point for everyone I'd guess this is down to some part of the simulation not scaling linearly with number of parts, so that if 100 parts requires 100 performance 200 parts might require 400 performance and 250 parts 1600 performance.

Of course even if the devs do get performance to be linear (or even less) people are still going to be hitting the limits of what can be built - if you can build a big rocket then why wouldn't you?

I'm sure they'll keep things balanced so that people can reach all the destinations using a variety of designs even on a low end system though.

Building big is always going to lag the game.

[Bekiekutmoar]

I have an ancient computer with Pentium IV 3,0Ghz, 2GB RAM and 8800GT video card, but this vessel (certainly capable of performing interplanetary flight) doesn't turn my computer in a pile of smoking rubble at all. Several seconds after liftoff 2-4 fps, but smooth after that.

[CobraA1]

Running a quad core here with a dedicated PhysX card - and KSP, probably the most physics heavy game I own, doesn't support either .

But yes, this is in the hands of the Unity folks. There's not much the KSP devs can do except plead to the Unity devs.

[Awaras]

i have a intel i7-2600 8 core cpu running @ 3.4ghz. along with a 3gb Nvidia GeForce GT 545 graphics card connected to 12gb DDR3 ram and i still get lag when moving from the VAB to the launch pad

This is because the game procedurally generates the terrain around the KSC when you go to the launchpad. If you look around, you can see mountains popping up and stuff like that. It takes up to 30 seconds after starting the game...

[Newt0570]

i have a intel i7-2600 8 core cpu running @ 3.4ghz. along with a 3gb Nvidia GeForce GT 545 graphics card connected to 12gb DDR3 ram and i still get lag when moving from the VAB to the launch pad

That's not lag. That's what it looks like behind a loading screen. There simply isn't a loading screen there so the devs can easily see what's going on behind the scenes.

[TheProdigy]

i have a intel i7-2600 8 core cpu running @ 3.4ghz. along with a 3gb Nvidia GeForce GT 545 graphics card connected to 12gb DDR3 ram and i still get lag when moving from the VAB to the launch pad

That would probably be a normal thing seeing as KSP doesnt have a load screen for that transition.

EDIT: oops looks like im a little late ;(

*walks into the sunset*

[segaprophet]

I believe the ball is in unity's court to make the physics multi-core.

My Sandy Bridge i7 has 8 logical cores when hyperthreading is enabled. Are you telling me KSP can only use 1 of them? That's a shame!

[Moodtastic]

I have an ancient computer with Pentium IV 3,0Ghz, 2GB RAM and 8800GT video card, but this vessel (certainly capable of performing interplanetary flight) doesn't turn my computer in a pile of smoking rubble at all. Several seconds after liftoff 2-4 fps, but smooth after that.

A PIV will probably run this game equal to other modern processors as it stands due to the high clocked single core. This game is not graphically intensive either so your 8800GT is fine too. You probably have the most cost effective rig to run this game as it currently stands!

[vexx32]

Yes, that's exactly what we're saying. As it is, it won't even use multi-threading... sadly.

[CobraA1]

A PIV will probably run this game equal to other modern processors as it stands due to the high clocked single core. This game is not graphically intensive either so your 8800GT is fine too. You probably have the most cost effective rig to run this game as it currently stands!

Yup, a 3.0 GHz Pentium IV is about as powerful as my 2.4 GHz Core 2 for single threaded processes. Although do keep in mind that Intel made a major architectural shift when they went to the Core 2s, so clock speeds are somewhat misleading.

[Bluejayek]

Further on wht cobra said, a much more meaningful measure would be calculations per second, not a clock rate. Different processors can do different number of operations per clock cycle, which is why you cant compare aPentium IV at 3GHz and an i7 at 3GHz and say they do the same job.

[Elios]

i have a intel i7-2600 8 core cpu running @ 3.4ghz. along with a 3gb Nvidia GeForce GT 545 graphics card connected to 12gb DDR3 ram and i still get lag when moving from the VAB to the launch pad

thats a HDD thing its loading a bunch of stuff get a faster HDD i have to but it settles after about 10 sec

also the i7 is a 4 core(physical CPUs) 8 thread(Logical CPUs each cpu can run 2 threads) CPU not 8 core there are i7s with 6 cores and 12 threads as well

i have to say the game makes good use of at lest 4 threads so i cant really complain much game runs fine

not most power house system any more only 4Ghz i7 860 and 8GB of ram and a GTX 580 so its gen or 2 old on all fronts

the 2600k can oc to 4.5Ghz on air and 5Ghz on good water cooling and the new 680s are stupid fast

That's not lag. That's what it looks like behind a loading screen. There simply isn't a loading screen there so the devs can easily see what's going on behind the scenes.

if your still running an old PPU and not a extra GPU for PhsyX you should know the latest drives dont support the PPU cards any more and they slower then even older low end 7x00 cards so you can get a cheap replacement any way

Edited September 3, 2012 by Elios

[Monk-E-Boy]

Further on wht cobra said, a much more meaningful measure would be calculations per second, not a clock rate. Different processors can do different number of operations per clock cycle, which is why you cant compare a Pentium IV at 3GHz and an i7 at 3GHz and say they do the same job.

Precisely. After the P4, which was designed to not get a lot of work done in each clock cycle but have a very high clock rate to make up for it, they switched back to getting a lot done in each tick with a slower clock rate. A 1.4Ghz P3 could wipe the floor with a 2Ghz P4, and Pentium-M/Core/Core2/etc. CPUs are normally faster, clock-for-clock, than a P3 (with obligatory exclusions for Celeron, "Pentium G," etc. hobbled designs).

[Elios]

Precisely. After the P4, which was designed to not get a lot of work done in each clock cycle but have a very high clock rate to make up for it, they switched back to getting a lot done in each tick with a slower clock rate. A 1.4Ghz P3 could wipe the floor with a 2Ghz P4, and Pentium-M/Core/Core2/etc. CPUs are normally faster, clock-for-clock, than a P3 (with obligatory exclusions for Celeron, "Pentium G," etc. hobbled designs).

Pentium-M/Core/Core2 where all based on the P3

P4 aka Netburst and was a major leap from other CPU designs at the time and was planed to be scaled all the way up to 5Ghz but.. that never happened

Intel thought that the low IPC could be made up for with clock speed and later used hyperthreading as a bandaid to help keep the pipeline full

netburst a VERY long pipeline for the time which in a cache miss had to be flushed make it even slower

i7 ironically is closer to what they wanted to the original P4 to be like be for most of the chip had features cut and proves to scale to clock speed only dreamed of with the P4

a 4Ghz P4 never saw the light of day but he i7 will over clock to over 5Ghz on water cooling and to 4Ghz+ on air

[simplemunrockets]

You are correct. The main lag issue is the lack of multicore/thread support. PhysX recently updated to add it, and now it's Unity's turn to do the same. Once that's done (hopefully soon), expect a MASSIVE increase in performance. I mean, even What-the should see about a 50% increase in speed or more on his dual-core system (laptop?).

Also, it really doesn't take that much to launch a rocket. Even Nova's rocket has a lot of dead-weight in the station part.

That finally explains why my personal laptop never ran the demo faster than 1 fps and runs Minecraft fine.

[CobraA1]

That finally explains why my personal laptop never ran the demo faster than 1 fps and runs Minecraft fine.

I should note that Minecraft doesn't use a real physics engine. The "physics" in Minecraft are a huge oversimplification of pysics (often to the point of absurdity), while KSP is actually using a physics engine that attempts to be realistic.

Minecraft physics are simply not comparable to KSP physics in the slightest. Totally different approaches to the physics problem, and totally different algorithms.