Why the game is slowing....

[gilflo]

Hi

I play KSP 0.19 with a iMac 2,8GHZ Intel core i5 and 12Go RAM, ATI radeon HD 750 1024MB, Mac OS 10.7.5

Well, as soon as I build big rockets or as soon as small rockets are docked on my Space station, the parts of this space station are growing and the game bean slowing.

The time counter for time warp 1 is yellow, every second in the game last 2 ou 3, sometimes 5s in real life.

So it is not possible to dock more than one big tank or one lander on a space station to refuel.

If you want something strong as space station you need to add many struts, same thing for big rockets.

The game don't use all my RAM, when I played, more than 6Go are allways free.

So that's a pity i must refrain from building to big rockets or dock more than one rocket on space station, more than 300 parts and it seems that's time is slowing, at launch the time counter is yellow...

Same for docking, docking at half or one third of speed takes a very long time....

Any idea, any improvement ?

[SargeRho]

Get a PC, with a faster CPU.

[SecondGuessing]

Get a PC, with a faster CPU.

What a useless suggestion.

The game is incredibly poorly optimised, TS, and it relies heavily on CPU rather than RAM. Thus it runs in a very peculiar way on systems that should blow it away. For example, my laptop can run most modern games on high~ settings at an acceptable framerate, but KSP starts to stutter even at 200 part ships. It's purely a fact drawn from the poor optimisation. Hopefully .20 will boost the games use of RAM and lower its CPU hogging, which should help a lot of people.

[_Aramchek_]

Hopefully .20 will boost the games use of RAM and lower its CPU hogging, which should help a lot of people.

Ram and cpu are not interchangeable things, using more memory will not ease the burden on the cpu, streamlining the calculations going on, or unity suddenly deciding to use gpu accel physx or use more than one cpu thread for physics calcs would/will.

My normal suggestion would be to overclock your cpu, however, you have a mac so I'm pretty sure you can't or are very limited in doing so.

[gilflo]

Well that's good news, becauuse before developping the game further, I think the major improvement is to optimize it. It's one of the best game I ever play and it would be a shame not to do it, because there is a lot of very interesting add on, you can build whatever you think of, try whatever rocket you want and after 2 hours building, it would lag at launch....!!!, it would lack when docking...

Please KSP team, do your best, improve use of RAM, yes you can....

[royying]

Well that's good news, becauuse before developping the game further, I think the major improvement is to optimize it. It's one of the best game I ever play and it would be a shame not to do it, because there is a lot of very interesting add on, you can build whatever you think of, try whatever rocket you want and after 2 hours building, it would lag at launch....!!!, it would lack when docking...

Please KSP team, do your best, improve use of RAM, yes you can....

they just blame on unity don't support multi-thread

[SecondGuessing]

Ram and cpu are not interchangeable things, using more memory will not ease the burden on the cpu, streamlining the calculations going on, or unity suddenly deciding to use gpu accel physx or use more than one cpu thread for physics calcs would/will.

My normal suggestion would be to overclock your cpu, however, you have a mac so I'm pretty sure you can't or are very limited in doing so.

I'm aware, but the optimisation, from what I've heard, has been tending in a direction that should make the game more efficient in its CPU and RAM usage, rather than it's current overuse of CPU and underuse of RAM.

And Gilflo, I agree, at this point I'd be happy for them to stop adding features and just optimise the game to work the way it should.

[42undead2]

Well that's good news, becauuse before developping the game further, I think the major improvement is to optimize it. It's one of the best game I ever play and it would be a shame not to do it, because there is a lot of very interesting add on, you can build whatever you think of, try whatever rocket you want and after 2 hours building, it would lag at launch....!!!, it would lack when docking...

Please KSP team, do your best, improve use of RAM, yes you can....

They've said they will first do major optimising on the game after release, because of some code thing I can't remember. Atleast, that's what I think I remember.

[Fel]

Ram and cpu are not interchangeable things, using more memory will not ease the burden on the cpu, streamlining the calculations going on, or unity suddenly deciding to use gpu accel physx or use more than one cpu thread for physics calcs would/will.

RAM and CPU are "Somewhat Interchangeable" and is apart of the 64-bit movement.

MOST processes can be made "Less CPU Intensive" by using more RAM; in the case of physics, storing the last 5 frames of "Physics Calculations" means that they can use a hashtable to jump directly to the results of the last calculation. (Oversimplified, yes... you get the idea.)

Additionally, by describing the interactions of each part upon the whole structure, such that they create a "physics/truss map" that can be fed into the system and thus only calculate the physics at the nodes where it occurs and feed the rest through the map is a more memory intensive process; (and probably far less accurate); but it would save cpu cycles.

Ultimately though, his statement is not inaccurate; just not very specific.

*** I should probably note that there are many ways to make Physics Calculations "faster" with stored results, but you are having the "less accurate" trade off. (Say you're in orbit around a planet, they don't HONESTLY need to calculate how the planetary body affects you, preservation of momentum and all that... they just need to change the force vector by a few degrees in according to precalculated physics)

Edited May 18, 2013 by Fel

[_Aramchek_]

I'm aware, but the optimisation, from what I've heard, has been tending in a direction that should make the game more efficient in its CPU and RAM usage, rather than it's current overuse of CPU and underuse of RAM.

It's a 32 bit game, my ram usage is about 1.9gb's with the vanilla game, it's appropriately using the memory.

It may have a memory leak, but fixing that isn't going to dramatically improve framerate, it will keep the fps from degrading over time played.

And again, memory and cpu do not do the same jobs, so "using moar r4m" isn't going to do much to speed the gameplay up.

And Gilflo, I agree, at this point I'd be happy for them to stop adding features and just optimise the game to work the way it should.

The game runs fine, you just need a powerful hardware to get the most out of it, like many other games, and this game has a lot more going on than many others, doing all the physics calculations is very cpu intensive and will likely remain so.

At 4.5ghz my 3570k runs the game just lovely unless I have multiple high part count ships/vehicles within the 2.5km physics simulation distance.

You wouldn't expect to play Crysis 3 very speedily on four year old hw, but for some reason, people think you should be able to play this one on full details/realtime physics on hardware that is laughably out of date.

RAM and CPU are "Somewhat Interchangeable" and is apart of the 64-bit movement.

MOST processes can be made "Less CPU Intensive" by using more RAM; in the case of physics, storing the last 5 frames of "Physics Calculations" means that they can use a hashtable to jump directly to the results of the last calculation. (Oversimplified, yes... you get the idea.)

Additionally, by describing the interactions of each part upon the whole structure, such that they create a "physics/truss map" that can be fed into the system and thus only calculate the physics at the nodes where it occurs and feed the rest through the map is a more memory intensive process; (and probably far less accurate); but it would save cpu cycles.

Ultimately though, his statement is not inaccurate; just not very specific.

It is fairly inaccurate though, you know, as well as I do, that best case scenario it's not going to make a dramatic difference overall, in some specific situations it will, but not for the reasons that people around here seem to think.

And in fact while you can store information in the ram..duh..it does no processing on it's own, hence the "not interchangeable" comment, and my comments about streamlining the code stand, that is going to be the way to do it, which will likely include how system memory is used, but memory usage itself is NOT going to suddenly make your fps go from 15-60.

Edited May 18, 2013 by _Aramchek_

[Taris]

get a pc, with a faster cpu.

not amd fx...

[xclusiv8]

What a useless suggestion.

The game is incredibly poorly optimised, TS, and it relies heavily on CPU rather than RAM. Thus it runs in a very peculiar way on systems that should blow it away. For example, my laptop can run most modern games on high~ settings at an acceptable framerate, but KSP starts to stutter even at 200 part ships. It's purely a fact drawn from the poor optimisation. Hopefully .20 will boost the games use of RAM and lower its CPU hogging, which should help a lot of people.

God, people like you always annoy the living hell out of me. Obviously you know nothing about cpus nor programming. Those "other" games that you can run on "high" settings dont calculate a bunch of physics every second nor do they have to calculate collision detection between hundreds of parts. What .20 will give you is better part handling, faster loads and stuff like that. The physics calculations wont just magically stop being calculated. For that sort of thing you will need a better cpu since the physics are calculated on a single core and therefore a high IPC is preferable.

[Reavermyst]

The next update is said to make the game run a lot better. hopefully once v.20 comes out, we'll see much better performance!

[_Aramchek_]

God, people like you always annoy the living hell out of me. Obviously you know nothing about cpus nor programming. Those "other" games that you can run on "high" settings dont calculate a bunch of physics every second nor do they have to calculate collision detection between hundreds of parts. What .20 will give you is better part handling, faster loads and stuff like that. The physics calculations wont just magically stop being calculated. For that sort of thing you will need a better cpu since the physics are calculated on a single core and therefore a high IPC is preferable.

Truff yo, like I said, you wouldn't fire up Crysis 3 on a e8400/Athlon 64 and expect to have playable gameplay without making a lot of sacrifices, but for some reason people think because the game does not run well for them, that the game is completely unoptimized.

While it will get better as the code is streamlined and bugs/leaks are fixed, you are still going to get the best results from a high ipc cpu clocked as high as you can take it.

[Wrymn]

Hi

I play KSP 0.19 with a iMac 2,8GHZ Intel core i5 and 12Go RAM, ATI radeon HD 750 1024MB, Mac OS 10.7.5

Well, as soon as I build big rockets or as soon as small rockets are docked on my Space station, the parts of this space station are growing and the game bean slowing.

The time counter for time warp 1 is yellow, every second in the game last 2 ou 3, sometimes 5s in real life.

So it is not possible to dock more than one big tank or one lander on a space station to refuel.

If you want something strong as space station you need to add many struts, same thing for big rockets.

The game don't use all my RAM, when I played, more than 6Go are allways free.

So that's a pity i must refrain from building to big rockets or dock more than one rocket on space station, more than 300 parts and it seems that's time is slowing, at launch the time counter is yellow...

Same for docking, docking at half or one third of speed takes a very long time....

Any idea, any improvement ?

So firstly Squad is not million company as Ubisoft to optimize game to maximum.

Secondly game simulator as KSP with several planets....ofc course its demanding, texture of whole planet is HUGE thing to process not talking about million of debris flying around.

And if you have mac, I`m not suprised. It cant be compared with PC. Even PC with specs as MAC would be stronger than mac itself.

[SecondGuessing]

It's a 32 bit game, my ram usage is about 1.9gb's with the vanilla game, it's appropriately using the memory.

It may have a memory leak, but fixing that isn't going to dramatically improve framerate, it will keep the fps from degrading over time played.

And again, memory and cpu do not do the same jobs, so "using moar r4m" isn't going to do much to speed the gameplay up.

The game runs fine, you just need a powerful hardware to get the most out of it, like many other games, and this game has a lot more going on than many others, doing all the physics calculations is very cpu intensive and will likely remain so.

At 4.5ghz my 3570k runs the game just lovely unless I have multiple high part count ships/vehicles within the 2.5km physics simulation distance.

You wouldn't expect to play Crysis 3 very speedily on four year old hw, but for some reason, people think you should be able to play this one on full details/realtime physics on hardware that is laughably out of date.

The game runs fairly crappy on even high end computers. Again, I can play Crysis 3 on this laptop with medium settings at around 40fps, but two 80 part ships trying to get near each other will choke it down to 15/10 fps, and that's with half texture detail, 2x AA and texture quality set to 'Good' . This is clearly a problem with the game. The game has fairly low quality textures and models, animations are few and awful, and the physics processing is not especially extreme, and yet it performs badly. Of course, this is because it's a beta, but pretending that there isn't an issue is pointless and fanboyish. When the game runs poorly doing simple things on machines that exceed the recommended system specs then there's problem, and saying 'well get a better computer' doesn't help, because people have been told by Squad that the game will run on the system they have, and yet doing basic things will choke it.

God, people like you always annoy the living hell out of me. Obviously you know nothing about cpus nor programming. Those "other" games that you can run on "high" settings dont calculate a bunch of physics every second nor do they have to calculate collision detection between hundreds of parts. What .20 will give you is better part handling, faster loads and stuff like that. The physics calculations wont just magically stop being calculated. For that sort of thing you will need a better cpu since the physics are calculated on a single core and therefore a high IPC is preferable.

You don't need to know anything about computers: if the game runs poorly on systems that meet the recommended settings then there is a big problem that needs addressing. But of course, people never seem to side with the consumer.

Edit: I'm not expecting the game to perform well at this point, by the way; it's too early in development to expect anything particularly impressive. But, pretending that the performance is good is silly, and telling people who want to improve the game's performance 'your PC just sucks, buy another one' is less than helpful.

Edited May 18, 2013 by SecondGuessing

[Taris]

So firstly Squad is not million company as Ubisoft to optimize game to maximum.

Secondly game simulator as KSP with several planets....ofc course its demanding, texture of whole planet is HUGE thing to process not talking about million of debris flying around.

And if you have mac, I`m not suprised. It cant be compared with PC. Even PC with specs as MAC would be stronger than mac itself.

Thing is, iMacs and Minis require heat dissipation control due to their form factor, how fancy they look like? But PC can drive itself with rather cheap custom CPU coolers higher than such All-in-One computer. Heck, you can even use water cooling solution too.

So, yeah, the best answer to OP is: it is normal... this game is very very CPU intensive and not so optimized yet.

[_Aramchek_]

The game runs fairly crappy on even high end computers.

I get 60+ fps launching 400 part ships at 1920x1080 with every setting maxed,and generally get much higher fps than that, so, NO.

Just no, the game runs pretty well actually, provided you have the hardware to do so.

Again, I can play Crysis 3 on this laptop with medium settings at around 40fps.

This is meaningless unless you provide all the details, resolution, etc., and your laptop model.

The game has fairly low quality textures and models,

That it does, and if you look, you'll notice your gpu usage is very low if you have a halfway decent gpu from the last four years or so.

On my old 460 it was around 34%, the graphics are NOT the limiting factor, the hardcore physics simulation going on IS, and that, if you'll kindly look, is going to be beating one core of your cpu like a rented,redheaded mule.

The physics calculations are done on ONE cpu core and are very cpu intensive, if you do not have a cpu that is capable of having really good single core performance, you will get a lot of slowdowns.

but pretending that there isn't an issue is pointless and fanboyish

Not at all, I get really good performance from the game, as I stated before, unless I have a lot of high part count vehicles all within that 2.5km distance wherin things go "off rails" and physics are calculated for every ship.

because people have been told by Squad that the game will run on the system they have, and yet doing basic things will choke it.

Minimum spec is just that, it's the slowest thing you can run the game on, but don't expect miracles, just like any other game.

The higher you are above minimum spec the better the game will run.

And I gots no problems on the [email protected].

[SecondGuessing]

I get 60+ fps launching 400 part ships at 1920x1080 with every setting maxed,and generally get much higher fps than that, so, NO.

Just no, the game runs pretty well actually, provided you have the hardware to do so.

Nobody cares what you get; you're running on a machine that massively exceeds the recommended system specs, of course you get incredible performance.

Minimum spec is just that, it's the slowest thing you can run the game on, but don't expect miracles, just like any other game.

The higher you are above minimum spec the better the game will run.

And I gots no problems on the [email protected].

The specs on the KSP site aren't minimum specs, they're recommended specs, which implies the game will run well on that machine when it comes to doing standard things, which it doesn't.

And again, congratulations, you have a machine that massively exceeds the recommended specs and runs it extremely well. Who'd have thought it?!

Lord, it's like talking to people with six figure salaries about how bad the public sector cuts have been.

[_Aramchek_]

Nobody cares what you get; you're running on a machine that massively exceeds the recommended system specs, of course you get incredible performance.

Which is the point, the faster your cpu is/the higher it's ipc is, the better it will do the physics calculations going on in game, and the smoother your fps will be, this is not something that can be easily changed, if you have a cpu that is not fast with high ipc, expect slower framerates.

Regardless, your claim that "ram usage will speed things up!!111", is highly inaccurate.

The specs on the KSP site aren't minimum specs, they're recommended specs, which implies the game will run well on that machine when it comes to doing standard things, which it doesn't.

Are you new to pc gaming?

And again, congratulations, you have a machine that massively exceeds the recommended specs and runs it extremely well. Who'd have thought it?!

Lord, it's like talking to people with six figure salaries about how bad the public sector cuts have been.

You're ignoring what I've been saying about WHY the game runs slowly for some people to focus on taking shots at my ability to afford a decent gaming pc, which in and of itself is not anything special, I have a high mid range gaming pc, lots of others have pc's as fast or faster.

However, like any other pc game, the better your pc is, the better you will run any given game.

And for those of you with amd cpu's especially, don't expect the smoothest gameplay, my 3570k at it's stock speed of 3.4ghz completely demolished my 8120@4ghz.

To run the game smoothly, you NEED a powerful cpu, things like that are normal for pc gaming.

[leax256]

Can people stop with the passive aggression...it's getting kinda anoying.

Also you don't see scott manely complaining about 4 FPS.

[SecondGuessing]

Which is the point, teh faster your cpu is, the higher it's ipc is, the better it will do the physics calculations going on in game, this is not something that can be easily changed, if you have a cpu that is not fast with high ipc, expect slower framerates.

Regardless, your claim that "ram usage will speed things up!!111", is highly inaccurate.

I didn't say more RAM usage will speed things up, I said better optimisation will.

Are you new to pc gaming?

No, it's a staple of PC gaming that there are minimum specs and recommended specs, and that the distinction is that one will just about scrape by on lowest settings and one will run adequately on normal settings.

You're ignoring what I've been saying about WHY the game runs slowly for some people to focus on taking shots at my ability to afford a decent gaming pc, which in and of itself is not anything special, I have a high mid range gaming pc, lots of others have pc's as fast or faster.

What? I don't care at all that you can afford a good gaming PC. Good for you. The point is though that you are being completely boorish in stating 'oh it's fine, I can run it okay' whilst using a machine that is far above the recommended settings. However, the majority of people cannot afford a strong gaming PC, and thus suggesting that the solution to the problem that their machine, which according to Squad is a recommended setup, chokes up is to 'just buy a new PC' is just boring and pointless. All it is is tacit smugness.

However, like any other pc game, the better your pc is, the better you will run any given game.

And for those of you with amd cpu's especially, don't expect the smoothest gameplay, my 3570k at it's stock speed of 3.4ghz completely demolished my 8120@4ghz.

To run the game smoothly, you NEED a powerful cpu, things like that are normal for pc gaming.

Then perhaps Squad should tell people that their 2.0Ghz dual core isn't going to cut it, rather than imply that it's a recommended setup.

I'm not arguing that a better PC doesn't equal better performance, I'm arguing that a recommended PC should play the game in the way the devs feel the game should be experienced, and this is clearly not true, unless having a yellow clock is meant to be the way to play.

[Fel]

It is fairly inaccurate though, you know, as well as I do, that best case scenario it's not going to make a dramatic difference overall, in some specific situations it will, but not for the reasons that people around here seem to think.

And in fact while you can store information in the ram..duh..it does no processing on it's own, hence the "not interchangeable" comment, and my comments about streamlining the code stand, that is going to be the way to do it, which will likely include how system memory is used, but memory usage itself is NOT going to suddenly make your fps go from 15-60.

Uhh... yes it will.

RAM does not do "operations", but let's say that the game calculates gravity at every frame.

G * m / (r + d) ^ 2.

Now the game can just run that calculation over and over, or it can create a table that stores gravity information for, idk... d=0m to 100,000m at 10m increments; just extrapolating the difference for the rest. Now that DOES result in SAVED CPU CYCLES.

Storing previous calculations for parts means that, with little variation in inputs, the game can use EXTRAPOLATION rather than DIRECT CALCULATION to generate physical response for the next frame.

Using a "map" means that it can directly state what each and every part will undergo given inputs, rather than feeding through the partchain, which SAVES CYCLES. (We're effectively turning the ships into ridged bodies)

What you fail to understand is that decreasing CPU usage usually comes at the trade off of increasing RAM usage.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Fel

[_Aramchek_]

I didn't say more RAM usage will speed things up, I said better optimisation will.

Except that it won't aside from very specific circumstances, which I've already explained.

No, it's a staple of PC gaming that there are minimum specs and recommended specs, and that the distinction is that one will just about scrape by on lowest settings and one will run adequately on normal settings.

It's also a staple of pc gaming that you should usually not take "recommended" specs seriously and should have as powerful of a pc as you possibly can to get the best performance.

What? I don't care at all that you can afford a good gaming PC. Good for you.

Your propensity to focus on it and make snide personal remarks, instead of the objective fact that you NEED a fast cpu to get good performance in this particular game, especially with higher part count vehicles, and the reasons WHY that is true says otherwise.

The point is though that you are being completely boorish in stating 'oh it's fine, I can run it okay' whilst using a machine that is far above the recommended settings. However, the majority of people cannot afford a strong gaming PC, and thus suggesting that the solution to the problem that their machine, which according to Squad is a recommended setup, chokes up is to 'just buy a new PC' is just boring and pointless. All it is is tacit smugness.

See above.

Then perhaps Squad should tell people that their 2.0Ghz dual core isn't going to cut it, rather than imply that it's a recommended setup.

I'm not arguing that a better PC = better performance, I'm arguing that a recommended PC should play the game in the way the devs feel the game should be experienced, and this is clearly not true, unless having a yellow clock is meant to be the way to play.

Squad hasn't done anything that anyone else in the industry do not do, and in fact this game is far more open ended than nearly any game on the market in what you can build with it, it is impossible to give a specific benchmark of what performance you should or will get with some of the insane configurations you can come up with.

The recommended spec will run the game reasonably well, with caveats due to the nature of the game.

Uhh... yes it will.

RAM does not do "operations", but let's say that the game calculates gravity at every frame.

G * m / (r + d) ^ 2.

Now the game can just run that calculation over and over, or it can create a table that stores gravity information for, idk... d=0m to 100,000m at 10m increments; just extrapolating the difference for the rest. Now that DOES result in SAVED CPU CYCLES.

Storing previous calculations for parts means that, with little variation in inputs, the game can use EXTRAPOLATION rather than DIRECT CALCULATION to generate physical response for the next frame.

Using a "map" means that it can directly state what each and every part will undergo given inputs, rather than feeding through the partchain, which SAVES CYCLES.

What you fail to understand is that decreasing CPU usage usually comes at the trade off of increasing RAM usage.

As I mentioned, streamlining the code/calculations will, in CERTAIN situations, keep the game from slowing down, it is not however a magic bullet that will dramatically improve framerate, regardless of your insitance that it will.

If you cannot run the game at 60 fps now, on an old i5 750, memory optimization is not going to close that gap for you in the future, it WILL lead to a smoother and more consistent fps though.

Edited May 18, 2013 by _Aramchek_

[SecondGuessing]

Except that it won't aside from very specific circumstances, which I've already explained.

It's also a staple of pc gaming that you should usually not take "recommended" specs seriously and should have as powerful of a pc as you possibly can to get the best performance.

I feel I already stated that nobody ever sides with the consumer in this area...

Your propensity to focus on it and make snide personal remarks, instead of the objective fact that you NEED a fast cpu to get good performance in this particular game, especially with higher part count vehicles, and the reasons WHY that is true says otherwise.

I don't give a minced oath about what you think you need to run this game, I care about what the devs are telling people will run this game, and as such people are clearly going to be disappointed by their machines, which exceed the specs recommended, are handling it awfully.

If you're told that x new radiator will improve the performance of your 1.2l engine but in reality it barely works, and really you need a 2l to use it, then you're right to be miffed.

And if you don't want people making snide comments at you then don't, when told the game runs poorly on machines on which its touted as running acceptably on, say 'well it works perfectly well on my 4ghz machine!' as though that's a solution to any problem. Besides, your caricatures of my point and dull little 'Regardless, your claim that "ram usage will speed things up!!111", is highly inaccurate' comments hardly place you on the moral high ground, friend. All I have said is that the game currently runs poorly on computers which it should run better on, and that in .20 we've been told that the optimisation will increase performance; and that the people who just say 'get a better PC' aren't helping anyone and are just being boorish. All you've done is argue against a strawman and nicely exemplify my latter concern.

Squad hasn't done anything that anyone else in the industry do not do, and in fact this game is far more open ended than nearly any game on the market in what you can build with it, it is impossible to give a specific benchmark of what performance you should or will get with some of the insane configurations you can come up with.

The recommended spec will run the game reasonably well, with caveats due to the nature of the game.

That's an awful excuse and you know it. Building a 150+ part ship is required in order to do many of the things in this game, and if a system can't run that then it clearly shouldn't be being touted as a recommended system.

And they add caveats about the state the game is in due to the fact it is still in development, and I have acknowledged this. However, this only adds to my point, that the game needs better optimisation. In fact, by saying that the system specs are somewhat arbitrary due to the development the devs themselves are saying that the game needs to be optimised far better in order to reach its potential.

The 'everyone else does it' defense is equally hollow.

As I mentioned, streamlining the code/calculations will, in CERTAIN situations, keep the game from slowing down, it is not however a magic bullet that will dramatically improve framerate, regardless of your insitance that it will.

Peculiar, because, you know, I actually stated exactly this in my opening post: 'Hopefully .20 will boost the games use of RAM and lower its CPU hogging, which should help a lot of people.' But of course, you've just caricatured my point again.

The only premises you need to accept to be agreeing with me are as follows: the game currently doesn't run very well on baseline systems; upcoming optimisation may help to improve this issue for many people; saying 'get a new PC' is not at all helpful. I don't see how any of those points are deniable, and so far you haven't shown any evidence to the contrary.