Improve performance?

[mrmatrixdlg]

Hello, Just asking if there was any way to improve the performance of KSP. I ask this because I noticed a dramatic drop in frames when i was in orbit (around 100,000) when I looked at Kerbin. Looking into the distance also causes lag.

Here is my specs for you people who may find it useful for a solution!

Graphics card:

ATI 5450

DDR3

512mb memory

Computer:

Quad core i5

4 gigs ram

750gb HDD

Windows 7 home premium

KSP

Resolution: 1024 x 768

Terrain Detail: low

Texture quality: half res

V Sync: Don't Sync

Frame Limit: 120 fps

Pixel light count: 6

Shadow cascades: 1

[Chainer]

I'd say a RAM increase would help, double up to 8 GB and you should see a noticeable improvement, it's also the easiest change to make.

[phoenix_ca]

Odd. Your computer should be able to handle KSP quite well. As a caveat though, KSP is still in it's really early builds, so I doubt much has been done in the way of optimization.

That said, looking at a planet will put a fairly intense strain on your graphics card if you're in time-warp, as it significantly increases the rate at which the engine loads higher-quality textures and maps for the area of the body you're orbiting, directly below your ship. (And it'll cause momentary lag regardless.) What, exactly, do you mean by "looking into the distance"?

If you have Catalyst Control Center installed, make sure that the settings there aren't overriding KSP, notably, you might want to turn-down or turn-off AA, and disable V-sync if it's enabled there. (Conflicting settings are never a good thing, and AA is a serious framerate killer.)

[rkman]

I'd say a RAM increase would help, double up to 8 GB and you should see a noticeable improvement

If you're running a 64bit OS, otherwise there's no point.

[Seanoog]

Is that a laptop specification?

You'll find upgrading laptops expensive, an with certain parts impossible.

Now your playing it at low setting + low resolution. So it shouldn't be that taxing.

If its a desktop, consider doing the following:

1. Upgrading cpu heatsink + overclocking.

2. More Ram, to 8GB if 64Bit OS.

3. New graphics card.

KSP is Alpha Stage, so still in active development, an poorly optimised.

So running it at max setting is impossible without a powerful computer.

But the orbiting visuals are beautiful, if your computer can handle them.

[EndlessWaves]

I'd say a RAM increase would help, double up to 8 GB and you should see a noticeable improvement, it's also the easiest change to make.

I'd think that very unlikely. KSP is a 32-bit program so it'll be limited to 2GB usage on 32-bit OSs and 4GB usage on 64-bit ones and a quick check loading up my most part-intensive ship shows it using 1.8GB.

Additionally he said this happens when looking at a particular object and goes away as soon as he looks away, it seems unlikely the game is deleting kerbin from memory the second it goes out of sight.

@mrmatrixdlg: It's worth turning the settings up as a test, some of the more recent technologies may be faster and if performance doesn't change much then we can probably rule out your graphics card.

[Jesrad]

In my experience, KSP's rendering and physics calculating run in the same execution thread, so that will never use more than one CPU core at a time. I only see it get at most to 120% of a CPU on my 2.4 GHz i5. So bulk CPU speed is probably the main bottleneck - current GPUs typically have no problem of throughput and bulk performance.

[vexx32]

Well, you can try this:

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/20983-Kellven-Fixes-your-FPS-Round-2-Kerbin-Lag-Fix

Scroll down to my post a little ways down for a working fix. Kellven's original one was tied to 0.16 and he hadn't properly updated it for 0.17.

[EndlessWaves]

So bulk CPU speed is probably the main bottleneck

On an i5? I don't get the behavior described on a slower Q6600. I would think it's either the graphics card (which is very weak) or some sort of software/configuration problem.

I suppose it might be the hard drive, does the performance get any better if you keep looking at kerbin?

Does this happen with all rockets or only the larger ones?

[draeath]

If you're running a 64bit OS, otherwise there's no point.

Wrong. If you have PAE, you're still limited to 4gb per process, but that 4gb doesn't need to be shared with Windows and everything else that's running.

Edited September 28, 2012 by draeath
adding quote

[phoenix_ca]

KSP is a 32-bit program so it'll be limited to 2GB usage on 32-bit OSs and 4GB usage on 64-bit ones and a quick check loading up my most part-intensive ship shows it using 1.8GB.

Erm, quick note about that, all of the part information gets loaded (that is, addressed to memory) when the game starts. So, in terms of parts at least, KSP is using the most memory it will when you get to the main menu. Loading a ship in the VAB shouldn't change this (aside from the relatively tiny .craft file that would need to be loaded). If the engine were reading every part from the hard drive into memory only on an as-needed basis, it would take a lot longer to load a single ship in the VAB.

Any increase in usage beyond that point is likely caused by other stuff, as required. Plugins might use a bit extra when their classes are loaded, but this should be negligible. Even things like ISA Map Sat, which generate huge amounts of raw data, are designed to trash most of it quickly (in ISA MapSat's case, by either rendering the data points to a PNG and/or recording them in a semi-colon-separated file). Even if it didn't/doesn't though, the increase would be negligible, on the order of a few dozen MBs per hour, maybe running the sim at 50x speed.

Edited September 29, 2012 by phoenix_ca

[mrmatrixdlg]

I'd like to say thanks to all of you who replied, your responses have been very insightful.

Thanks, and have nice weekend!

[rkman]

Wrong. If you have PAE, you're still limited to 4gb per process, but that 4gb doesn't need to be shared with Windows and everything else that's running.

Which 32bit MS OS's intended for home use do not have.

So for most people, 32bit OS means they are limited to 4GB.

[draeath]

Oh really?

Microsoft supports Physical Address Extension (PAE) memory in Microsoft Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003.

...

The PAE kernel is not enabled by default for systems that can support more than 4 GB of RAM.

To boot the system and utilize PAE memory, the /PAE switch must be added to the corresponding entry in the Boot.ini file. If a problem should arise, Safe Mode may be used, which causes the system to boot using the normal kernel (support for only 4 GB of RAM) even if the /PAE switch is part of the Boot.ini file.

The PAE mode kernel requires an Intel Architecture processor, Pentium Pro or later, more than 4 GB of RAM, and Windows 2000, Windows XP, or Windows Server 2003.

The PAE kernel can be enabled automatically without the /PAE switch present in the boot entry if the system has DEP enabled (/NOEXECUTE switch is present) or the system processor supports hardware-enforced DEP. Presence of the /NOEXECUTE switch on a system with a processor that supports hardware-enforced DEP implies the /PAE switch. If the system processor is capable of hardware-enforced DEP and the /NOEXECUTE switch is not present in the boot entry, Windows assumes /NOEXECUTE=optin by default and enables PAE mode.

Note that Vista, 7 etc all have 64-bit versions, hence their dropping of PAE support. XP technically did, but it shouldn't be considered the same OS. So, if you have Vista or 7 and more than 4 gb of RAM and your CPU supports it, you bought the wrong version of Windows. Boo hoo - that was your mistake.

[phoenix_ca]

So, if you have Vista or 7 and more than 4 gb of RAM and your CPU supports it, you bought the wrong version of Windows. Boo hoo - that was your mistake.

What in the world are you talking about? If you have Vista/7 and 4GB+ of RAM, it'll work. You've got the right version. They both come in 32-bit and 64-bit versions, crammed on the same disk.

[rkman]

Oh really?

Originally Posted by Microsoft

Microsoft supports Physical Address Extension (PAE) memory in Microsoft Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003.

Operating system Maximum memory support with PAE

Windows XP (all versions) 4 GB of physical RAM*

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/gg487503.aspx

The point was not have people go buy additional RAM if they already have 4GB and are running a 32bit non-server MS OS. That point stands.

[phoenix_ca]

And again, the point stands that it's only in XP, 2000, and 2003, that you get PAE. Vista and 7 aren't listed in your link. (There's still no point to getting more RAM to run KSP if you have at least 4GB and only run KSP. So...I don't see why this debate is relevant. Intriguing, but tangential to the thread.)

[boony]

Wow! Thank you very much! Finally i could go back to high settings with better performance than without this workarround on low settings.