Active Flights Effecting FPS?

[The CanineCraver]

Computer Components:
CPU : Intel I7-9700K
GPU : Asus ROG RTX 2070 Super
RAM : Corsair 2x16Gb DDR4 1600MHz
Game's Drive : Samsung 970 Evo NVME SSD

Mod list:

Spoiler

AstronomersVisualPack
B9PartSwitch
Chatterer
DMagicOrbitalScience
EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements
EventHorizon
KAS
KerbalEngineer
KerbalJointReinforcement
KerbolOrigins
KIS
Kopernicus
KopernicusExpansion
MechJeb2
NearFutureProps
OPM
PlanetaryBaseInc
ReentryParticleEffectRenewed
scatterer
StationPartsExpansionRedux
TimeControl
TriggerTech (Kerbal Alarm Clock)
TweakScale
WarpPlugin (Interstellar Extended)

^Mods that where packaged with Interstellar as well as universal texture packs and non-impactful(?) utilities were not included.

Problem:

Low and inconsistent FPS using moderately sized vessels on save with 40+ active flights.

Context:
I started a career world in KSP v1.6.1 with mods, the focus being Interstellar Extended and Event Horizon. I was off and on the past couple years since I started it, but recently returned to it, finding my comprehension of game mechanics having improved dramatically. As a result I've spent a lot of time recently expanding my space program, currently at 43 flights, everything from landed vehicles, bases, deployed science, and orbital probes and relays. However, I started to notice that I wasn't getting anywhere near the performance I felt I should be getting, considering my only visual mod was EVE with SVE, as the game was set to 1.7.1 to run the mods. I updated the game to 1.10.1 and found improved performance, but large craft(100-200 parts) still didn't do too great, causing the clock to slow and FPS to drop to ~20/s. I've seen Youtube videos with much bigger vehicles, more visual mods, and some with weaker systems I assume, running with better frames and relatively smooth physics performance. I've conducted quite a bit of research, and tried many of the suggestions, including messing with the "Max Physics Delta-Time Per Frame" setting, going both ways and seeing nearly no difference. Of course I've also tried this in fresh saves, modded and stock, using the same vessels, both rockets and fixed wing aircraft, and the only factor that made significant difference being flight count. The save with higher flight count had overall lower frames when compared to a no flights save using the same mods and settings, as much as ~30 frames/s in some cases. This doesn't seem to be effected by distance either, an outpost on Minmus containing no more than 150 parts at the highest estimate, still only receives 50 frames on the surface, with frequent frame stutters, despite only having a few, low part count relays in orbit above it. This remains the case regardless of physics-less time warp, graphics settings, or visual mods. A large aircraft sitting on the runway with 179 parts receives a fairly smooth ~60 FPS on a fresh save, and upper 30's to low 40's on the career save, with near unbearable frame inconsistency, and after harshly removing parts via kinetics, the FPS improves with every part lost.

Troubleshooting Efforts Thus Far:

• Clean Install
• Clean Save
• Transferred Active Craft Data To New Save
• Tested Different Values Of Physics Delta Timing Setting
• Tested Different Graphics Settings
• Removed Visual Mods
• Ran Stock
• Cleared All Debris

Conclusion:

I usually only ask for assistance when I've exhausted the vast majority of my options to fix a problem that, based on current findings, would only get worse as I progress in my save. So before advancing further, I figured asking the community for help would be wise. I don't see how my system would underperform when handling 100-200 part vessels, when I've seen videos of people's vessels containing mind-boggling amounts of parts and stages not killing the game's clock. Therefore I figured something must be configured incorrectly. Thank you in advance for any feedback, and I'll get you any information you feel I've missed in explaining my predicament, providing you ask for it.

[Serenity]

2 hours ago, The CanineCraver said:

I usually only ask for assistance when I've exhausted the vast majority of my options to fix a problem that, based on current findings, would only get worse as I progress in my save.

Yes, the ''bigger'' your save becomes the lower perfomance you will get.

I have restarted my save four times through the years and every time i got the same results.

Its not that bad though, its still playable with decent fps, the lengthy menu transitions are the most annoying part for me but what can you do...its fun to create big space programs.

 

Edited November 19, 2020 by Boyster

[The CanineCraver]

Thank you for the response, I suppose it is just how KSP is, being an old game and all. I do suppose the benefits outweigh the negatives, providing I'm efficient enough to avoid frequent reverts/quicksaves... Let's hope they fix these types of things when KSP 2 finally rolls out.

Edited November 19, 2020 by The CanineCraver

[Serenity]

3 minutes ago, The CanineCraver said:

Thank you for the response, I suppose it is just how KSP is, being an old game and all. I do suppose the benefits outweigh the negatives, providing I'm efficient enough to avoid frequent reverts/quicksaves...

Some streamers and other people with big saves have a seperated ''clean'' Sandbox Career with no or few active flights.

They use that as a platform-simulation to build and test big crafts so they don't get that lag.

Dunno if you are interested in this, its not very hard to copy the craft files to a different save after you done making it, up to you .

Edited November 19, 2020 by Boyster

[The CanineCraver]

If it ends up getting bad enough I'll probably use that method, but at the moment it isn't too extreme. It's mostly launches and large fixed-wing aircraft. Thanks for suggestion none the less!

Funny thing is of course Interstellar relies on beamed power for many applications, so I'll need a lot of satellites, oh well...

Edited November 19, 2020 by The CanineCraver