What am I missing regarding performance issues?

[RaBDawG]

So I am running pretty standard spec rig, AMD Ryzen 9 5900X 12-Core Processor 3.70 GHz , 32.0 GB RAM, GEFORCE RTX 3080.

 

I am running game on all High Setting at 3840x2860 resolution with VSync on and I am 60 FPS the entire time even when looking at Kerbin etc.  I def get momentary "Lag Spikes" sometimes on uncoupling, etc, but performance wise its fine. 

 

Now the actual game mechanics and bugs etc are a HOT mess......

 

Also how TF do you disable PAIGE?

[Catto]

Remove your ears

[Periple]

I have a similarly powerful rig (i5 12600KF, RTX3080). I've been running it at 1440p and while I haven't been actively staring at frame rates, performance has been very good. 

I think it has some specific bottlenecks, like the fuel flow system they mentioned. So far I've just been making simple single-engine rockets with maybe a few SRBs strapped on. If the fuel flow is tanking the frame rates, it wouldn't manifest on craft like that.

[BobbyDausus]

Standard rig? Well i'll let you know that only 2% of players on Steam are running a rig like yours .Most people run RX 570(me) ,2060/1070/1060/3060/5700XT/6600XT etc , not 3080,6900xt 4090 and 7900XT

Edited February 24, 2023 by BobbyDausus

[Kubas_inko]

Just now, BobbyDausus said:

Standard rig? Well i'll let you know that 2% of players on Steam are running a rig like yours 

I can't stress this enough, but people seem to not understand that only like 25% of the possible player base meets the minimum hardware requirements. And even playing on that is bad.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Kubas_inko

[RaBDawG]

3 minutes ago, Kubas_inko said:

I can't stress this enough, but people seem to not understand that only like 25% of the possible player base meets the minimum hardware requirements. And even playing on that is bad.

Ah ok, didn't realize I had such a good computer, lol. 

[BobbyDausus]

my friend has 6600XT and Ryzen 5 3700X (above minimum spec) and can't play the game. The issue seems to be the TERRAIN,at least for me on RX570.Looking at Kerbin i get 10 fps and while i'm in space not looking at kerbin i get 50,but still ........ 

[Wheehaw Kerman]

5 year old Dell Gaming laptop, [email protected]/1050ti 6mb.  1920x1080, all graphics settings at low.  I’m getting acceptably playable fps compared to KSP1 standards (6 to 39 FPS in flight depending on where the camera is pointing.  I’ve seen a couple of bugs and glitches, nothing that has broken my game.  
 

People need to chill.  The game is better than we expected and will be fine.

[BobbyDausus]

9 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

5 year old Dell Gaming laptop, [email protected]/1050ti 6mb.  1920x1080, all graphics settings at low.  I’m getting acceptably playable fps compared to KSP1 standards (6 to 39 FPS in flight depending on where the camera is pointing.  I’ve seen a couple of bugs and glitches, nothing that has broken my game.  
 

People need to chill.  The game is better than we expected and will be fine.

Well mate,i don't have a powerfull PC,but if that's what you're pleased with then,kudos to you. Let me know once you land on the moon in 10 years at that 6 FPS playable framerate

[Wheehaw Kerman]

22 minutes ago, BobbyDausus said:

Well mate,i don't have a powerfull PC,but if that's what you're pleased with then,kudos to you. Let me know once you land on the moon in 10 years at that 6 FPS playable framerate

Well, it’s perfectly playable if you don’t look at Kerbin :).  Thing is, I wasn’t expecting the game to even run on my machine, and I was worried about frame rates 1/6th of what I’m getting, no angst.

[Meecrob]

49 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

The game is better than we expected and will be fine.

The game is better than you expected. Steam reviews suggest more than 50% of players disagree with you.

[BobbyDausus]

20 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

Well, it’s perfectly playable if you don’t look at Kerbin :).  Thing is, I wasn’t expecting the game to even run on my machine, and I was worried about frame rates 1/6th of what I’m getting, no angst.

That's the thing,you should've been able to play it decently given the game's graphics and all that

[Wheehaw Kerman]

11 hours ago, BobbyDausus said:

That's the thing,you should've been able to play it decently given the game's graphics and all that

See, one of the secrets to happiness is being able to deal with the reality you’ve got…

11 hours ago, Meecrob said:

The game is better than you expected. Steam reviews suggest more than 50% of players disagree with you.

The game is better than those of us with realistic expectations of Early Access expected, then.

[MarcAbaddon]

As good as could be expected after the initial videos, maybe yes. But all in all I think there is justified room for disappointment. Sure, bugs can be expected and we knew a lot of features would not be in.

You can definitely expect some crazy bugs in EA, and I don't think either Scott Manley falling through the ground at the Mohole or Matt Lowne taking the KSC with him into orbits are a big deal, those are the kind of bugs you can get when actively working on a game.

But other things like the terrible maneuver node system, the SAS system going totally haywire or the lack of vessel stats like TWR... those feel like the Devs not thinking about the basics and is quite disappointed IMO.

[tstein]

13 hours ago, Periple said:

I have a similarly powerful rig (i5 12600KF, RTX3080). I've been running it at 1440p and while I haven't been actively staring at frame rates, performance has been very good. 

I think it has some specific bottlenecks, like the fuel flow system they mentioned. So far I've just been making simple single-engine rockets with maybe a few SRBs strapped on. If the fuel flow is tanking the frame rates, it wouldn't manifest on craft like that.

It is not the fuel flow. The game  runs  abysmally with only a CAPSULE and no other part in game. Let me be very clear, on the same machine were a run a cardiac surgery volumetric professional simulator/planner at 40 fps,  I get   less than 10 fps with ONLY the capsule, no other part....

[MarcAbaddon]

Just now, tstein said:

It is not the fuel flow. The game  runs  abysmally with only a CAPSULE and no other part in game. Let me be very clear, on the same machine were a run a cardiac surgery volumetric professional simulator/planner at 40 fps,  I get   less than 10 fps with ONLY the capsule, no other part....

Is that simulator running on CPU only or does it use GPU? If it is CPU only you can't really compare it to KSP.

This being said performance definitely needs to go up, and the main limitation seems to be the GPU atm, with loads of lighting overhead.

[tstein]

2 minutes ago, MarcAbaddon said:

Is that simulator running on CPU only or does it use GPU? If it is CPU only you can't really compare it to KSP.

This being said performance definitely needs to go up, and the main limitation seems to be the GPU atm, with loads of lighting overhead.

Both, or you really think  you can  render a scene  500 times more complex than   KSP with only CPU.  Each  workspace has around 4 GB of  RAW data, sub milimetric info.

 

Also  KSP 2  has no excuse for demandign so much of the GPU,   you can find  OpenGL tutorials with more complex scenes that run   several times faster than   KSP 2.  A rocket in space  is a SIMPLE  scene! For god's sake.. comapre to  the amount of stuff rendered in Cyberpunk for an extreme example.. you really think KSP has a reason to run at 1/4th the performance of CYBERPUNK downtown (GPU wise, on the same machine)?