KSP2 is not ready For Science!

[PicoSpace]

50 minutes ago, Astroneer08 said:

Don't forget that there is a chance of an update in November. And there is definitely gonna be bug fixes on release day for 0.2

I can see a hot-fix for the AMD folks, as they are having very significant issues, and maybe for Conics if they figure it out... but I don't expect any real update between 0.1.5 and 0.2 at this point except for those hotfixes IF they figure out why they are happening.

I've now submitted 4 bug reports on 0.1.5 so case & point.

Edited October 28, 2023 by PicoSpace

[Astroneer08]

I'm  on an AMD cpu so maybe

[Mutex]

4 hours ago, Astroneer08 said:

I'm  on an AMD cpu so maybe

It's AMD GPUs that are having the graphical issues with the new clouds. (Although weirdly I'm not affected with my 6800Xt.)

[Astroneer08]

Ok

[ArmchairGravy]

I fully expect the frames to drop by 1/2 with the thermal system. KSP1 had struggles with theirs, and I'm not confident this team will fair better.

[Datau03]

On 10/27/2023 at 1:28 PM, LoSBoL said:

no TWR readings in the VAB besides Kerbin's 

That for example will fortunately be fixed in For Science!

Edited November 1, 2023 by Datau03

[Periple]

3 hours ago, ArmchairGravy said:

I fully expect the frames to drop by 1/2 with the thermal system. KSP1 had struggles with theirs, and I'm not confident this team will fair better.

I think that's unreasonably pessimistic! The thermal system as described shouldn't be computationally intensive. It will only tank frame rates if they've screwed up big time, and after all the work they've done to improve performance, I would be really surprised if they let something like that make it to release.

[Datau03]

7 hours ago, Periple said:

I think that's unreasonably pessimistic! The thermal system as described shouldn't be computationally intensive. It will only tank frame rates if they've screwed up big time, and after all the work they've done to improve performance, I would be really surprised if they let something like that make it to release.

Yeah, a very big part of KSP1's unperformant heating system was thermal conductivity, which will no longer eat up processing power in KSP2.  That makes the heating system simpler from the technical side, without comprimising on gameplay. 

More here : https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/218512-developer-insights-21-rockets-red-glare/

[GGG-GoodGuyGreg]

On 10/27/2023 at 9:57 AM, Vl3d said:

The foundation game still needs one or two more bug fixing passes / updates, otherwise by adding all the new parts and systems we'll just end up with bugs having bugs ...

There's nothing that moar boosters can't fix.

[Scarecrow71]

On 10/31/2023 at 11:57 PM, Periple said:

I think that's unreasonably pessimistic! The thermal system as described shouldn't be computationally intensive. It will only tank frame rates if they've screwed up big time, and after all the work they've done to improve performance, I would be really surprised if they let something like that make it to release.

I have to disagree with you.  I had 20-30 FPS in 0.1.4, but in 0.1.5 I am stuck at 5-7 on launch, and no better than 18 in LKO.  My performance never got better, and the last patch only made it worse.  The possibility that new systems will make it even worse than it is certainly exists.

[Periple]

1 hour ago, Scarecrow71 said:

I have to disagree with you.  I had 20-30 FPS in 0.1.4, but in 0.1.5 I am stuck at 5-7 on launch, and no better than 18 in LKO.  My performance never got better, and the last patch only made it worse.  The possibility that new systems will make it even worse than it is certainly exists.

That's really strange and quite different from most people's experiences! I suspect that something about your settings might be bottlenecking something somewhere and causing that drop. What's your hardware and what settings are you using? 

(I haven't been paying that much attention to framerates and don't even keep the indicator on all that often, but I'm running at 1440p at mostly high settings, and am getting between 40-120 depending on conditions. I do have fairly beefy hardware, RTX 3080 and i5/12600K with plenty of RAM and a fast SSD.)

Edited November 3, 2023 by Periple

[Scarecrow71]

10 minutes ago, Periple said:

That's really strange and quite different from most people's experiences! I suspect that something about your settings might be bottlenecking something somewhere and causing that drop. What's your hardware and what settings are you using? 

(I haven't been paying that much attention to framerates and don't even keep the indicator on all that often, but I'm running at 1440p at mostly high settings, and am getting between 40-120 depending on conditions. I do have fairly beefy hardware, RTX 3080 and i5/12600K with plenty of RAM and a fast SSD.)

My current system:

• CPU:  AMD Ryzen 9 3900 12-Core
• GPU:  GeForce RTX 2060 Super
• RAM:  32 GB

I have shots of the graphics settings in the game:

Spoiler

I actually submitted this as a bug yesterday, primarily because Spicat stated on Discord that this shouldn't be happening.  It's just odd that I got better performance in 0.1.4 than I do in 0.1.5.  To be fair, the ship I launched did have 270 parts, and in the recent interview ShadowZone did, Nate did state that there is still an issue with fuel flow when you have a bunch of engines firing at once.  Still, I never cracked 20 once I launched, which is odd.

[Periple]

I'm sure an actual developer would be able to weigh in on this properly, but I would suggest:

1. Turn down the texture quality and ground shader quality -- if you're VRAM bottlenecked, the former should help, and the Ultra ground shaders can be very expensive
2. If that helped, try turning up a bunch of the other settings. For example you should be able to run at least on Low AA and Anisotropic filtering ON, those aren't that expensive; environment props shouldn't bring your system to its knees either. 

You could also try with a different ship design -- it could be that there's something specifically about it that bottlenecks something. Mikki has managed to launch a 600-part ship without it being a slideshow so 270 parts ought to be manageable. 

[MechBFP]

2 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

My current system:

• CPU:  AMD Ryzen 9 3900 12-Core
• GPU:  GeForce RTX 2060 Super
• RAM:  32 GB

I have shots of the graphics settings in the game:

  Hide contents

I actually submitted this as a bug yesterday, primarily because Spicat stated on Discord that this shouldn't be happening.  It's just odd that I got better performance in 0.1.4 than I do in 0.1.5.  To be fair, the ship I launched did have 270 parts, and in the recent interview ShadowZone did, Nate did state that there is still an issue with fuel flow when you have a bunch of engines firing at once.  Still, I never cracked 20 once I launched, which is odd.

Yes I also get worst performance when I run on high on 0.1.5.

But just like you, I shouldn't be running on high in the first place because my hardware doesn't meet the high requirements, so complaining about it is just silly. Turn things down to low and you will see the improvements. Then turn things up one at a time and see which is the one killing the performance. As Periple suggested, it is likely the shading setting, and possibly texture quality.

Edited November 3, 2023 by MechBFP

[Scarecrow71]

15 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

Yes I also get worst performance when I run on high on 0.1.5.

But just like you, I shouldn't be running on high in the first place because my hardware doesn't meet the high requirements, so complaining about it is just silly. Turn things down to low and you will see the improvements. Then turn things up one at a time and see which is the one killing the performance. As Periple suggested, it is likely the shading setting, and possibly texture quality.

I do not disagree with you.  However, I haven't touched the settings since purchase, and it ran fine on 0.1.4 (20-30 FPS).  It's odd that this only started for me in 0.1.5 (and odd that I'm one of the few people who has yet to see any performance improvement in the game).  But, it is what it is.

[MechBFP]

9 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

I do not disagree with you.  However, I haven't touched the settings since purchase, and it ran fine on 0.1.4 (20-30 FPS).  It's odd that this only started for me in 0.1.5 (and odd that I'm one of the few people who has yet to see any performance improvement in the game).  But, it is what it is.

Optimizations intended specifically for high end hardware can negatively impact low end hardware. An optimization doesn't mean everything has an improvement in every use case.

Edited November 3, 2023 by MechBFP

[Periple]

58 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

I do not disagree with you.  However, I haven't touched the settings since purchase, and it ran fine on 0.1.4 (20-30 FPS).  It's odd that this only started for me in 0.1.5 (and odd that I'm one of the few people who has yet to see any performance improvement in the game).  But, it is what it is.

It is odd! It could be that they changed something about the ultra shader or the textures that bottlenecks it on your hardware. With that big a performance drop I’m pretty sure it is a bottleneck, maybe cache or memory running out somewhere forcing the game to start shuffling stuff between places. Did changing those settings help?

[Vl3d]

1 minute ago, Periple said:

It is odd! It could be that they changed something about the ultra shader or the textures that bottlenecks it on your hardware. With that big a performance drop I’m pretty sure it is a bottleneck, maybe cache or memory running out somewhere forcing the game to start shuffling stuff between places. Did changing those settings help?

Just start a new campaign guys.

[Scarecrow71]

19 minutes ago, Periple said:

It is odd! It could be that they changed something about the ultra shader or the textures that bottlenecks it on your hardware. With that big a performance drop I’m pretty sure it is a bottleneck, maybe cache or memory running out somewhere forcing the game to start shuffling stuff between places. Did changing those settings help?

It did.

17 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Just start a new campaign guys.

It WAS on a new campaign.  And every campaign I've started in 0.1.5.

[Periple]

16 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

It did.

Nice! Settings are weird, sometimes things don’t make any difference and sometimes they make all the difference. Main thing is it’s playable for you now. Maybe turning some of those others settings up even made it look better?

[MechBFP]

You can max out anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering for example and it will barely affect the FPS.

Clouds should stay at low as those are very intensive.