Bad performance in 0.20?

[KasperVld]

All framerate drops and performance issues can be tracked down to incompatible mods, especially the subassembly loader. Please find (or wait for) an updated version and remove the mod in the meantime.

[Jokurr]

Hmm looks like I’ll have to remove the subassembly loader when I get home. I noticed the game ran great without any mods, and then I put them all in at once (including subassembly loader) and it ran terribly. Didn’t have a chance to go through mods one by one last night but now I know where to start.

[Titus Jeb Worshipper]

I'm having the same problems with frame rate drops, cleared everything out and did a fresh install so its not incompatible mods, the game ran fine with .19. I had a quick play last night, built a little Mun lander for the joy of planting a flag and got horrible lag from launch through to about 40/50km (wasn't watching properley) once out of the atmosphere it was smooth as silk. On re-entry through to splash down with the capsule it started lagging again, so I'm guessing my slowdown problems are coming from loading textures on Kerbin, will have a play around with graphics settings and such like to see if this is fixable.

This is not me complaining btw, just thought it was worth mentioning and this seems like the thread to do so

[leopardenthusiast]

I'm getting the same good performance as I always have, except that for some reason alt+tab crashes the game now.

[Cresilia]

I did a clean install and started a new save, and I must say that the difference is fantastic. My performance is incredible now. KSP now runs silky smooth on my PC

Thanks squad!

[jackyjakob]

After the 0.20 patch I have less than 5 fps on my PC (i7-3770k @4.6 GHz; HD7970 @1.2 GHz) when flying a ~250 part rocket. With 0.19 I had better performance with much larger rockets.

[artao]

For me the game runs several orders of magnitude better. Loads faster, better framerates, far less lag.

I did a complete uninstall and re-install, and am playing 100% stock for now, until mods get updated.

And I've got a pretty low-end system, so this cannot possibly be system related. Win 7 Pro 32-bit, Pentium-D dual 3.4Ghz, 3Gigs DDR2 RAM, GTX560 Ti (okay, that part is semi-high end)

Tnaks Squad!! Great release!

[Sabor]

I've got mixed performance issues. Nothing is better, only worse, but after a certain distance away from a planet, mostly Kerbin, the famerate jumps back up to 80+. But on the surface of Kerbin and gliding into KSC, it's an optimistic 20

[dr_jt]

Much better.....

Edited June 6, 2013 by dr_jt

[nubcaker]

My game runs better on maxed out graphics now than it did in 0.19 with medium-low graphics...

[WhiteWeasel]

My rocket seems to spontaneously explode every now and then, I thought it was because I was trying a new design, but when I used my .19, it exploded too. They also jitter a bit. And no I do not have any mods.

Edited May 23, 2013 by WhiteWeasel

[Mrluap]

Vanilla is running great. Just created my first SSTO

[Ogre]

subassembly loader is quite obsolete.

It's less necessary, but I disagree that it's obsolete. I'd still like to start building a ship from a clean slate, then stick one of my standard lifters on it. I've also found it useful for adding things like small landers and rovers to larger vessels. With 0.20 at least I can start with a standard lifter and change out everything including the command pod, but it's not the same as having subassembly loader.

[RazorWolf19]

As a whole, the 0.20 update is pretty much leaning towards the good side. However, i'm disappointed at the performance improvements; my game doesn't lag MORE, but it hasn't become any smoother either.

But you know what? I'm not gonna complain about it 'cause the game is still great, and I handled it at this speed before so i'll handle it at this speed now.

Sorry if this is a pointless post... just my two cents.

THANKS for reading!

[Pontiac]

The only lag I've noticed so far is when using +/- to zoom in and out. Goes quick for about 5 or 10 frames, then starts dropping out until I stop. I ran a stock ship launch with MechJeb, and it was OK. Now rebuilding my space station ground up.. cuz it was FUN.

[KissSh0t]

I noticed this as well.. v0.19 ran much better than this new update.

My system is AMD Phenom 955 running at 4GHz, 8GB CL7 ram with a GTX 460 1GB at 1366x768 resolution.

[whatisthisidonteven]

Lag happens a lot on planets like Laythe and Kerbin where there's a lot of ocean. The oceans are very poorly optimised and generate insane amounts of lag, and it seems to have gotten worse in 0.20 for some reason. There's a quick fix you can do which will get rid of the ocean lag, but a side effect is that the ocean will appear a bit lower than where the ocean actually is, it's not that big of a problem unless you're playing around with boats.

To do it open your settings.cfg and find the "KerbinOcean" and "LaytheOcean" entries and set the "Maxsubdivision" from 6 to 1. Remember to do this for all of the "xOcean" entries, there's multiple ones for each planet

[brobel]

i dont know but mine has been runing much faster and i can load and exit the game way faster

[velusip]

I've got mixed performance issues. Nothing is better, only worse, but after a certain distance away from a planet, mostly Kerbin, the famerate jumps back up to 80+. But on the surface of Kerbin and gliding into KSC, it's an optimistic 20

Similar here. I haven't gone to any other planets/satellites, but the terrain does have an effect. What's even more strange is every so often I get buttery smooth framerates, but only for a short time or until I rotate the camera.

Edited May 24, 2013 by velusip
typo

[wired2thenet]

wired, the Intel chipset of those laptops was never designed for gaming, it sucks at anything 3D and especially OpenGL. This is in large part because it offloads all those calculations on the CPU (it has no real GPU) and uses main RAM instead of video RAM which means less RAM for everything else and worse, main RAM is a lot slower than dedicated video RAM.

There's sadly for you no way to resolve that beyond getting another computer with its dedicated graphics chipset and video RAM.

Yeah, I know. My original desktop system suffered a massive power failure a year ago, and because it requires a very expensive proprietary power supply, I haven't been able to replace it (I *hate* dell, even though I keep buying them). My laptop is a work laptop, and it works well for the most part (just a bit sluggish at times). Oddly enough, some other games with slightly higher requirements work at 60 fps, but I'm guessing they don't have quite the same CPU requirement as KSP does.

Hopefully next month I'll be able to get my main system back up and running.

[rodion_herrera]

Oddly enough, some other games with slightly higher requirements work at 60 fps, but I'm guessing they don't have quite the same CPU requirement as KSP does.

Hopefully next month I'll be able to get my main system back up and running.

This might be slightly OT, but I wish to address an issue, esp. comments from people who say "My rig can run Battlefield 3 or CoD MW4 smoothly, but it chokes on KSP???" Well, it's VERY similar to a comparison being made to say MW4 and another game that actually has a SANDBOX in it...I'm talking about the Arma series of games. Now if you go to the average ArmA forum, and check out the complaints (mostly from people who own both BF3/MW4 and ArmA) about the game, their complaints are very akin to what people who have poor performance issues with KSP have written down. Some of their rants are pretty unreasonable, because they are basically comparing apples to oranges.

SANDBOX games (or games which have a SANDBOX mode or option) will necessarily be laggy than other games, simply because other games that have a scripted or "locked" storyline, have optimized "levels" i.e. they don't have to render the interior of this and that house, because your game character isn't supposed to go inside that house anyways. But a true SANDBOX environment doesn't have those kinds of restrictions, so every space, nook and cranny in the game, has to be rendered, because your character mind end up in that place...now if they did that for BF3, MW4 or any other shooter or racing or flight simulation game, think of the toll it would put on the PC's processor/video card. Sandbox games have always been slighter "laggy-ier" than their counterpart games, because they attempt to represent EVERY object that's supposed to be encountered in the sandbox universe.

Edited May 24, 2013 by rodion_herrera

[KissSh0t]

Lol comparing MW4 to ARMA.. You can't do that.. It's like giving a child a lollypop and a glass of fine wine and asking which tastes better.

[rodion_herrera]

Lol comparing MW4 to ARMA.. You can't do that.. It's like giving a child a lollypop and a glass of fine wine and asking which tastes better.

I like that, perfect analogy!

-RODION

[Taris]

I'm feeling So-So... But my rig is AMD FX [email protected] which has only 4 floating point calculation units and suffers from bottleneck of 8 cores when all of them trying to use such insufficient number of modules. It has been the same for 'simulation' type games such as MS Flight and even IL-2.

[_Aramchek_]

Running fine here, it's no faster than it used to be, nor is it any slower than it used to be. I don't use mods though.