Better performance after patch 1?

[Dantheollie]

After downloading the patch, I wanted to test the performance improvements. I seem to be getting higher frames on the runway with moderately complex aircraft.

However, I have noticed that a few of my craft that used to fly, no longer work. Parts overheating also seem to to be new (maybe I hadn't noticed yet)!

Have you seen any performance improvements?

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

2 minutes ago, Dantheollie said:

After downloading the patch, I wanted to test the performance improvements. I seem to be getting higher frames on the runway with moderately complex aircraft.

However, I have noticed that a few of my craft that used to fly, no longer work. Parts overheating also seem to to be new (maybe I hadn't noticed yet)!

Have you seen any performance improvements?

Open the Spoiler and compare - Link

[securityinstruts]

Just a small one, ~1-2 FPS improvement when flying a small craft but this is with a potato; i7-3770k, GTX 980 and 16 gigs

Otherwise the first patch was pretty much what I expected; a first step on a great journey

[modus]

Only did one simple mun mission, but it seemed to be a lot smoother. And the clouds look much better!

I9 -12900k, rtx 3080ti, 64g ram.

[rjbvre]

My potato's a little slower than @securityinstruts (gtx 970, i5-3570k, 16gb). When terrain is in view my fps seem about the same, but I have a small to moderate increase when planets are far away or out of view. The max I've seen is an almost 15fps increase with a small craft far from anything. 

 

[Hattrick]

I'm super impressed with the update... This patch has renewed my faith in IG to really turn KSP2 into what they've talked about for years. I definitely see a slight increase in performance (more than enough for me to enjoy the game at this early a stage).  The graphical improvements and small UI and map node improvements are HUGE in my book.  Still a LONG way to go but damn if this isn't catching up to KSP1 much more quickly than I thought.  Well done IG, earned my positive review on Steam... Hopefully many others agree

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Hattrick

[NippyFlippers]

No, in fact it seems even worse, now. I get like 2-5 FPS when in flight and looking down at kerbin, 60FPS in map mode or when looking at the sky.

 

[tlx]

I was hoping so, but it's exactly the same (laptop with i7 1280P and a GTX 1080Ti eGPU via Thunderbolt).

[Basketcase]

I'm getting a huge boost to fps post-patch.  I'm getting double the fps near KSC, on the launchpad, on the runway.  I get about the same in space.

 

i5-10600k, 3060TI, and 32GB

Edited March 16, 2023 by Basketcase

[miyagi]

It *feels* a bit better on my 1080.

I have not played much. Waiting for the first few patches. Twinkling stars/gas clouds -- was that always there?  Makes space feel magical. I like.

[Brofessional]

I haven't spent a ton of time with it yet, but performance seems to be much better regarding the engine exhaust and fuel flow calculation. Initial liftoff is still the worst performing portion of the game as expected, and for me it went from 5-10fps to 20-25fps; still low but that's a significant improvement. Takes the game from borderline unplayable to reasonably enjoyable.

i7-6700k, 5600XT, 16GB DDR4 -- 1080p max settings

[The Aziz]

Not seeing any difference in planet rendering performance, it's still terrible. Look up or face the slideshow. But I was able to fire 8 ion engines at the same time and not lose a single frame. That was a success.

[HowDoKerbal]

Performance is greatly improved on my end. 5950x, 3070, 32GB RAM.

I’m really impressed, didn’t expect such an improvement in performance this early in the EA cycle.

Edited March 17, 2023 by HowDoKerbal

[ZuluDoggy]

5 hours ago, NippyFlippers said:

No, in fact it seems even worse, now. I get like 2-5 FPS when in flight and looking down at kerbin, 60FPS in map mode or when looking at the sky.

 

I was hoping I wasn't the only one who had a decline in performance. Pre-patch I was getting 20+ FPS average (from 15 FPS on the low end to 30+ elsewhere). Now I am also seeing FPS in the sub-5 range in some situations. Very low FPS in flight with Kerbin in view, higher when looking at the sky, but still rarely exceeding 30 FPS.

[RocketRockington]

People seem to be reporting very wide results - I've seen some reddit posts saying they're getting 2x the FPS from before, some saying no change at all.   Weird.

[Nnamleips]

For me, the FPS increased from 4-6 low settings, to 12 fps highest settings.

have a system in the upper middle of the recommendations. Intel I7 @3.6Ghz RTX 4070TI.

[Elfmaze]

I only played briefly on the new patch.  I have some very large "ships" I've been testing.

 

One thing I noticed is it sometimes hangs .  Screen goes white like it crashed and takes a few mins to recover.  This was when loading a large craft onto a launch pad. Once it loads it seems to be OK. but I haven't tried launching it.

[Tapeta]

Yesterday I launched my complicated asparagus stage Mun rocket and now it runned at 15FPS , before it was something like 7-9FPS during start.

Spoiler

imgur album:

https://imgur.com/a/6UoMJJS

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Tapeta
typo

[NippyFlippers]

I suspect there is something wrong with the shaders used for drawing terrain .

I am running on a Raedon RX Vega with 8 GB VRAM. If in flight and looking at kerbin my GPU-load goes up to 100%, and the frame rate drops off a cliff, down to around 5 FPS.

Turning the camera at the sky I get stable 60 FPS and maybe 75% GPU load. Being in the VAB also gives stable frame rates.

When switching to map mode in mid flight the FPS also goes up to 60 and GPU usage drops to 15%.

Only when terrain geometry is shown the games starts eating GPU usage like crazy.

Is there some kind of weird displacement map running to generate mountains?

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by NippyFlippers

[VacuousSpace]

Made to Mun and back without any explosions.  Then I greedily plotted a mun mission to land and return to earth Apolloish style.  Easily reached mun and landed!  Rough seas ahead though, Kraken struck on fuel transfer after leaving surface and ship is now spinning uncontrollably.   So better.  FPS feels lowish but playable for me.  Kraken upon fuel transfer is not playable though...

[Streetwind]

Got slightly better performance in some situations. But my video card is still hopelessly out of memory, so unless the planned replacement of the PQS system with concurrent binary tree subdivision magically makes do with 30% less VRAM, I don't think I'll ever get smooth framerates.

It's below the minimum spec anyway, so it's not like I have grounds to complain

[Smegsy]

I'm another who's getting around 2 times the performance.

P.C. is at or below min spec (i5 4690k and a 1070ti).

Overall it's pretty smooth.

[Chilkoot]

I'm seeing moderate improvements in CPU-intensive situations involving large ships, multiple engines drawing from the same tank, etc - exactly as expected given the patch notes.

NO improvement when FPS is limited by the terrain rendering problems, esp. on bodies exhibiting the Z-fighting problem, like Eve.  I did some specific testing with a few different save points on non-Kerbin planet surfaces, and there was 0% change - at least none that was measurable.

[Chilkoot]

10 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

People seem to be reporting very wide results - I've seen some reddit posts saying they're getting 2x the FPS from before, some saying no change at all.   Weird.

That's b/c people knee-jerk react based on anecdotal evidence.  Careful like-for-like testing and actually recording frame rates is what tells the real story.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

11 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

People seem to be reporting very wide results - I've seen some reddit posts saying they're getting 2x the FPS from before, some saying no change at all.   Weird.

I'd be leery of that.  2x might be from someone with a barely capable machine that was trying to build high-part-count craft.  The only real FPS improvement I'm seeing with my machine is flying around the KSC in particular; which they mentioned doing something for that one chunk of Kerbin.  That's one of the reasons I did my tests with the stock craft... and with that I saw no real improvement.  

Thus - my interpretation is that they might have tamed some resource utilization issues (via fuel flow calculations or part interactions, that kind of thing) that were impacting some machines in certain scenarios but the baseline FPS performance in graphically demanding situations will have to wait for the PQS overhaul.

I think a lot of people just see FPS = Performance, without thinking about the why.