Is 0.20 faster?

[_Aramchek_]

Based on how the graph is showing, I think it follows a good pattern, if we were to replace the keys:

significant: Low to mid end computer users

Slight: Mid to high end computer users

No change: Those Alienware or Razer type setups, or other "hot-rod" souped-up PCs with all the goodies in them.

Performed worse: various reasons (v0.19 mods, O/S issues, some not updated drivers, etc.)

this is just my opinion/observation/prediction

That is a more fleshed out version of what I was getting at earlier, it would be nice to have that information alongside the op's poll.

[astropapi1]

Nevermind my past comments, I was (unintentionally) trying to run KSP on the highest resolution and on high graphic settings.

Now that I turned them down, it runs extremely smoothly and never in Slow-mo like before.

I love you devs!

[rodion_herrera]

That is a more fleshed out version of what I was getting at earlier, it would be nice to have that information alongside the op's poll.

Good that you agree, because I would add that therefore, the goal of the devs for the 0.20 release was to make the game "more accessible for a broader spectrum of users, specifically those who own computers with less fancy hardware", which makes a lot of sense, if they really want to release it in the future as a commercial product. And in my opinion, they actually seem to be achieving their goal. So I think they are a solid team.

[whatisthisidonteven]

Based on how the graph is showing, I think it follows a good pattern, if we were to replace the keys:

significant: Low to mid end computer users

Slight: Mid to high end computer users

No change: Those Alienware or Razer type setups, or other "hot-rod" souped-up PCs with all the goodies in them.

Performed worse: various reasons (v0.19 mods, O/S issues, some not updated drivers, etc.)

this is just my opinion/observation/prediction

I have no mods, use Windows 7 and have all of my drivers up to date and 0.20 performs a lot worse for me for some reason

[rodion_herrera]

I have no mods, use Windows 7 and have all of my drivers up to date and 0.20 performs a lot worse for me for some reason

Did you go back to 0.19 then ran it, and confirm that it's performing better than 0.20?

[Kerbol Prime]

Slightly faster, I wasn't really lagging much before so I can't tell but overall its more stable loading.

[whatisthisidonteven]

Did you go back to 0.19 then ran it, and confirm that it's performing better than 0.20?

Yeah, I used the fraps FPS counter

Ran a mission to orbit on a clean save with the exact same rocket and exact same settings (copy and pasted settings.cfg)

0.19 averages 40-60 fps, 0.20 averages 15-30fps

[Cesrate]

I'm using 32bit Win 7 and a near-vanilla game. In 0.19 and before I can only set Terrain to default (or it will lag very much) and Render Quality Level to fastest(or it will certainly crash). In 0.20 they were all gone! Now I'm running highest texture quality, good render quality and highest terrain quanlity and even trees and rocks!

Edited May 29, 2013 by Cesrate

[Flixxbeatz]

Slightly better since 0.19.1 - I can now fire 9 ion engines and open twelve giant solar panels without significant FPS drops, around 10-11 fps normal and 8-9 fps when recording with Fraps. Getting decent 20 fps with small spacecrafts. Still need to apply some settings using the Task Manager (Priority on "High", Affinity is only the first 2 cores - using all 4 can thermal my laptop) and in the game (terrain to low, render to fastest) though, will try to up the settings some time.

The only difference is that I now play full-screen, since I got afflicted by the "small-screen" bug.

[SkyRender]

For many things, KSP now runs much more smoothly. But for others... Well, I've found a strange phenomenon hit me. A station of mine will be running at full FPS with around 200 parts on it, but the moment I try to add even a miniscule addition to it, my FPS around that station drops to about 5. Not sure what's doing that, to be honest. Also, sounds seem to take forever to load up during start-up, even though everything else is lightning-fast.

[3_bit]

I think the load time is the same (listing ALL those files no doubt gives the illusion of a longer load time), unless you account for the new features, fixes, loading system, etc.. That said, performance will necessarily go down as features get added, just like for other games. This is more obvious in KSP because it already has it's big slice of your CPU clock cycles, regardless of your computer (much like Java, IMHO). Simply, don't expect to do KSP Multiplayer with Kethane and FAR on your 6 year old laptop.

[Jacob01]

Yes, I have noticed a difference. Nothing too big, but its defiantly a bit quicker and less lag is around.

[DaveofDefeat]

I can actually fly 2,000+ part ships now without completely unbearable lag.

[Zelda]

I have a higher-end system, and it slowed down for me. It used to be fairly smooth, whether looking at Kerbal or not, but now I get 15-20FPS when looking at Kerbal. Definitely different, and not in a great way. I guess the one thing I'm not sure about is ships that are 500+ parts; I've never built anything like that, so I'm just not sure. That said, I still continue to adore this game.

My specs: i7-3770k @4.5GHz, 32GB of RAM @DDR3-1866, AMD HD7970 GHz edition 4GB, Samsung 840 Pro 256GB SSD. All other games run very smooth. Holding out hope for more optimization at some point.

[Plur303]

I decided to post some evidence of my performance decrease. Here is the same station and docked spaceplane in the same position over Kerbin with the same graphics settings. I usually play in 1920x1080 fullscreen but did these in 1600x900 windowed so that I could use the windows snipping tool and catch the FPS displayed by FRAPS.

19.1

22 FPS This is what I would consider the average, not a high framerate taken at the right time.

20.0

18 FPS This is also what I would consider an average, not a low FPS taken at the right time

I'm seeing about a 20% decrease in performance.

My system is

CPU: i7-950

GPU: HD-6870

RAM: 6 GB 1600 MHz

Running on a 256 GB Samsung SSD

[magnemoe]

The Dev team mentioned a 30% reduction in memory usage.

But does it?

In fact many said performance dropped, frame rates slowed.

For me, I observe no noticeable changes though ever since 0.19.

Memory uses will not have any speed impact as long as you have enough memory.

If you run out of memory or push against 4Gb however you have problems.

[Tataffe]

I didn't notice any changes, but with 8 GB of memory, I never ran short anyway.

[Devo]

The Dev team mentioned a 30% reduction in memory usage.

But does it?

In fact many said performance dropped, frame rates slowed.

For me, I observe no noticeable changes though ever since 0.19.

Same here, I have tested it on more machines than I can count now, I have worse performance, especially in EVA, if anything the new version runs a bit worse on some of the older machines, which is in contrary to a quote I read from Squad devs that the new version would be more friendly to less powerful PC's

[ammonia_ocean]

Something else I've noticed (I'm using a 2007 iMac running OS X 10.6.8, so not exactly the peak of computing performance, but not terrible): When I was running 0.19, I used to be able to have a lot more applications open. I could easily have Firefox and even (in one instance) a Skype video call open while I was launching 200+-part rockets, and only experience relatively minor lag. Now, if I have the game as the only open application on the computer, it runs fine, but if I open even Firefox, it slows down dramatically.

[SkyRender]

Purely in the interests of !SCIENCE!, I decided to compare my start-up load times between 0.20 and 0.19.1. For an unmodded 0.20, it takes 99 seconds from Squad logo to title (55 of which are spent loading sounds; yikes!). For 0.19.1, it takes 109 seconds from Squad logo to title. However, I have a number of mods installed for 0.19.1. I tracked the time it took for each mod to load as well, and without them, the load times for 0.19.1 would be around 80 to 85 seconds. So yeah. As it turns out, thanks to the amazingly long load times for sound effects, 0.20 is in fact slower to load than 0.19.1 was.

[ProjectXMark1]

My game loads much faster and there is as general performance increase. It also crashes less often, haven't had one yet!

Edited May 29, 2013 by ProjectXMark1
Ninja Edit says: You can't spell.

[hoojiwana]

Purely in the interests of !SCIENCE!, I decided to compare my start-up load times between 0.20 and 0.19.1. For an unmodded 0.20, it takes 99 seconds from Squad logo to title (55 of which are spent loading sounds; yikes!). For 0.19.1, it takes 109 seconds from Squad logo to title. However, I have a number of mods installed for 0.19.1. I tracked the time it took for each mod to load as well, and without them, the load times for 0.19.1 would be around 80 to 85 seconds. So yeah. As it turns out, thanks to the amazingly long load times for sound effects, 0.20 is in fact slower to load than 0.19.1 was.

I'm having this exact same issue. 0.19.1 (stock and mods) loads faster than 0.20 (stock) and 0.20.1 (stock), with sounds taking an inordinately long time to load. I'm just poking through the support section and bug tracker to see if anyone has flagged this is up as an issue.

[tstehler1]

Since my PC is around 10 years old, I was pleasantly surprised at the increased speed in 0.20. Everything runs faster for me, which is great, since I'm actually getting good at the game and doing real missions instead of my old strategy of "moooooooaaaaaar boosters!!!" (oh me in my .15 days...)

[FlamedSteak]

I haven't really noticed much of a difference. Though I didn't really get much lag in the previous version, I try to keep my craft pretty simple.