Orbital Stations? Can't play anymore

[M5000]

Please be advised: The most RAM KSP will ever use is about 3.5GB, as it is a 32-bit game.

[SalmonellaDingDong]

Will there eventually be a stable Windows x64 build?

OP: Do you have the latest graphics drivers available for your system installed?

[Blaylock1988]

Stop writing like you're 7. Capitalization, punctuation, spelling, and general sentence structure all make it possible for people to actually understand what you're trying to say. They will also take you seriously and value your opinion... something that won't happen if u rite li3k dizz all D@YYYY.;'/!!..

AMD processors are inferior to Intel ones in single thread performance. That's why KSP lags. Once we have proper multicore and hyperthreading support it will be a lot better.

Not to mention 64 bit, GPU acceleration, and actual PhsyX support.

Oh and multi screen support. Game on one monitor, map on the other.

Try overclocking, might help a little.

I am running an i5-3570K with 8 Gb of RAM and a GTX 660 SC2 w/ all settings at max. I experienced a performance drop with space stations when upgrading from .19 and starting new in 0.20, as opposed to the increase i was anticipating with the optimizations that Harvester had talked about....

[Brabbit1987]

Stop writing like you're 7. Capitalization, punctuation, spelling, and general sentence structure all make it possible for people to actually understand what you're trying to say. They will also take you seriously and value your opinion... something that won't happen if u rite li3k dizz all D@YYYY.;'/!!..

AMD processors are inferior to Intel ones in single thread performance. That's why KSP lags. Once we have proper multicore and hyperthreading support it will be a lot better.

Not to mention 64 bit, GPU acceleration, and actual PhsyX support.

Oh and multi screen support. Game on one monitor, map on the other.

Try overclocking, might help a little.

I have to say that has to be like the most over exaggerated comment ever. There is a huge difference between correcting someone's grammar and being a grammar nazi. However, this is one step above that.

First of all, sorry for going off topic here, however, this needs to be said. Native english speakers don't even use grammar, punctuation, spelling and sentence structures correctly. I know I don't and I most certainly have a hard time using the correct their, or there and to or too. So when we are talking about someone who does not speak english well, you can't assume their sentences are going to be fabulous. We live on Earth, a planet full of many countries and many languages. Also take your own advice about valued opinions. it's hard to take you serious when you act like a jerk. Being a jerk to me is a bigger issue then someones sentence structures. Respect others, it's more important.

[KevinW42]

I also noticed a huge drop in frame rate when Kerban is in view. I turned the camera away and it ran perfect, flipped it around and it ran like crap, noticed before update, but seems worse now. I have a 64b 12gb Ram 6 core 3 ghz processor...

I've noticed that too. It also seems to help if you keep your orbit above 160 km.

[OrbitusII]

Back to the OP:

As KSP is in development, the people developing it haven't put much time into optimization, but rather into expanding the systems available to the users (proof: Bac9 and Taverius have managed to optimize B9 Aerospace so that it takes less time to load than stock parts, while significantly more parts are in B9A than stock: 175 vs 30-40ish). Harv and the other programmers have only recently started implementing career mode, so we can expect a lot more content to show up over time.

From Harv's Blog Post About Development Asymptotes:

So, this is what I've been thinking about lately, and why these last updates haven't been as glorious as the ones before it. If development were a crater-shaped field we needed to (excuse the cheesy analogy here) harvest, we are now trying to plow through the steepest parts of the slopes on one side of the valley, while there are vast level fields still unvisited towards other directions.

Here's a barely readable graph to illustrate the already stretched analogy!

This may have been intended as an explanation for slower updates, but the graphic fits well with the explanation, I think. Now if you add a fourth area, "Optimization," to the graph, that will be at about the same place as "Career" since the biggest optimizations we've had are the new GameData loader and the Terrain-On-Demand feature. Squad hasn't started to optimize the physics, terrains, or other internal systems significantly yet (to the extent of my knowledge anyway) so the game will perform rather poorly compared to things that have been out for a while.

Also, regardless of optimization, KSP is a very physics and CPU-intensive game, versus things like Minecraft where slowness is caused by a terrible engine (sorry Mojang, but that Java thing has got to go) or BF3/any high-graphics-quality game with lag caused by extremely detailed meshes, textures, and thus high amounts of draw calls. You could make KSP handle physics for vessels as a whole versus individual parts, performing better, but it wouldn't be KSP.

Edited June 4, 2013 by OrbitusII

[Cdr_Zeta]

Hi,

There is a section in settings you canm turn off shaders (or somethin similar); unfortunately the only thing to do is shut down things that make the game look pretty.

My intentions were the same however bein that it is what it is, I have to play my game accordingly..I only have a slightly better computer - but I would have to have 8Gigs RAM minimum with Win7 (64bit); the graphics card would help in your case if you could upgrade.

I think I have to have my shaders on; I am getting seems and I dont like them; I had LOTS of parts on the field and had lagg; so I am learning my 'LAGG' limitations early on so I can play a nice smooth game accordingly whenever I get to that point, which is finally soon!

Unfortunately it is looking like we have to compact our ships, and dont set big space station dreams too early on.

I dont see a problem with fudging around with fuel when you know that you can provide for more maximums, but cant due to game lagg. I certainly aint gonna build big and sit there for over an hour anymore just to get that thing into space let alone dock to it; we have to watch our parts count more I guess.

Cdr Zeta

[Psychoholic]

This is not a problem with KSP. It is the game engine (Unity, developed by a different company) not utilizing hardware resources. Squad can't do much about it.

The physics being calculated by the game engine are single threaded, and the GPU is not used for physics. Because of this, the game will lag horribly with high part counts, even on your beast computer with an i7 and 32GB of RAM plus a 4GB video card and an SSD. Until we get actual threading support from Unity, and/or have physics calculations done by the GPU (which is much better suited for such tasks by many orders of magnitude), we will be living in lag central.

[Blaylock1988]

I just discovered that my huge drop in performance is actually caused by the huge number of Kerbals I have in my space station. I noticed when I undock a part that can't carry any crew, it runs perfectly smooth. I think I have 24 Kerbals in space, So I will bring down over half of them and report back.

UPDATE: I did in fact have 24 Kerbals in my station. I removed 18 of them and my performance has increased significantly. I am surprised that Kerbals take up so many computer resources.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Blaylock1988

[haltux]

This is not a problem with KSP. It is the game engine (Unity, developed by a different company) not utilizing hardware resources. Squad can't do much about it.

I disagree.

In terms of rendering, you can always degrade quality/nb of polygons when required / when objects are too far (just like it is currently done with planet surface). This is not straightforward but this is always doable. Even simpler: you could decide the level of details for objects in the settings (currently you decide the quality of polygon rendering, but not, as far as I know, the number of polygons per objects). Of course it would require some work.

In terms of physics, I think the whole squad approach is wrong from the beginning. We don't need this ridicoulous robber rockets/stations. A rocket, or a station, should be one single rigid object. We would not have spinning with no reason, we would not have unexplainable wobbling. And of course, it would make the whole physics of the game much simpler.

As I said in a previous thread which was immediatly locked, significantly bending an object in space by applying a force at some point makes no sense.

I think Squad made this choice of a spring model for objects joints to have fun with rocket dismantling, but at the end of the day we pay a too high price for that.

[Boex]

I just discovered that my huge drop in performance is actually caused by the huge number of Kerbals I have in my space station. I noticed when I undock a part that can't carry any crew, it runs perfectly smooth. I think I have 24 Kerbals in space, So I will bring down over half of them and report back.

UPDATE: I did in fact have 24 Kerbals in my station. I removed 18 of them and my performance has increased significantly. I am surprised that Kerbals take up so many computer resources.

I raised this issue a while back, but I can't find the thread. It's the Kerbal animations and the dynamic internal lighting (and possibly the Kerbal AI) was implemented in 0.19 causing the lag...

[itsme86]

I disagree.

In terms of rendering, you can always degrade quality/nb of polygons when required / when objects are too far (just like it is currently done with planet surface). This is not straightforward but this is always doable. Even simpler: you could decide the level of details for objects in the settings (currently you decide the quality of polygon rendering, but not, as far as I know, the number of polygons per objects). Of course it would require some work.

In terms of physics, I think the whole squad approach is wrong from the beginning. We don't need this ridicoulous robber rockets/stations. A rocket, or a station, should be one single rigid object. We would not have spinning with no reason, we would not have unexplainable wobbling. And of course, it would make the whole physics of the game much simpler.

As I said in a previous thread which was immediatly locked, significantly bending an object in space by applying a force at some point makes no sense.

I think Squad made this choice of a spring model for objects joints to have fun with rocket dismantling, but at the end of the day we pay a too high price for that.

I disagree. Just because you're in space doesn't mean that Newton's laws cease to exist. If you have a 1200 ton space station and a long stick of a girder jutting out from one side of it, it's going to snap off like a twig if you push it from the side.

[Commander Zoom]

Large structures are far from rigid, as real-world engineers must take into account. See the unfortunate example of the first Tacoma Narrows Bridge, aka "Galloping Gertie", which literally tore itself apart due to oscillations caused by strong winds.

[haltux]

I disagree. Just because you're in space doesn't mean that Newton's laws cease to exist. If you have a 1200 ton space station and a long stick of a girder jutting out from one side of it, it's going to snap off like a twig if you push it from the side.

I know Newton. I said it was unsignificant.

You are taking an extreme case in which, yes, it would make a difference.

But practically in KSP you have two medium size spaceships connected with a two meters wide iron dock and with all engines off you can break it only with the power of your electric powered CMG. This is completely ridiculous. And why 10 cm wide struts are way more robust than 2 meters wide docks? Mystery...

Better no bending at all (honestly who would care?) than a bending model that exagerate the effect one million times.

Each time I show KSP I have the same comment: "why on earth does everything bend and wobble?". It really kills the immersion.

[Shadow86]

I think it'd help to reduce the fidelity of the representation of physics under certain circumstances, such as when the object in question isn't the active vessel and/or that object isn't too close to the active one.

The physics of certain parts could also be merged together with that of bigger ones they're securely bolted to. For instance, there should be no processing difference between rendering the physics of a fuel tank and those of a fuel tank with ladders, lights and batteries attached. Within the same spacecraft, it would probably be worth pondering just modelling the physical interaction between the largest parts. But I get the feeling the game has a huge processing overhead dealing with the physical representation of every last bit onboard a rocket, 90-95% of it practically wasteful given that many parts are likely securely attached to the point modelling how they might wobble is utterly unnecessary.

[itsme86]

The physics of certain parts could also be merged together with that of bigger ones they're securely bolted to. For instance, there should be no processing difference between rendering the physics of a fuel tank and those of a fuel tank with ladders, lights and batteries attached.

What if something swooshes by just close enough to hit one of those ladders, lights, or batteries? It should probably knock off that part instead of making the entire fuel tank explode. The individuality of parts goes beyond wobble.

People keep flat out saying "it doesn't make a difference" but really it does. The benefit gained form not having to process them individually might outweigh that cost, but you can't just completely discount it like it doesn't exist.

And I don't mean to just pick on you, I just picked your post to quote, but multiple people seem to have that same opinion and I don't like the distinction being denied. It's a pro/con measurement that deserves analysis IMO.

Edited June 7, 2013 by itsme86

[Caelib]

4GB of RAM is pretty weak in this day and age. I would upgrade to at least 8GB but most games now will run best with 12GB.

[OrbitusII]

On the subject of Unity being slow to process due to a lack of resource utilization, I both agree and disagree.

Agree because rigidbodies (the Unity physics component) are not the most processing-efficient thing in the engine. I haven't paid much attention to the PhysX version that Unity uses or the upsides to upgrading to PhysX 3, but an update would be good if only for staying up-to-date.

Disagree because the amount and detail of the terrain is ridiculous, and Unity terrain is even more inefficient than rigidbodies, especially when you're looking at a large amount of terrain (for example, viewing the planet from orbit will drop my framerate pretty significantly). No idea why this is, but it could definitely use some optimization.

[Used Car Salesman]

I also took a pretty brutal FPS hit from the 0.20 update, my stations that used to run perfectly fine now lag into the single digits. If anything I had fewer addons in my 0.20 folder so it should have run FASTER, not slower. Plus it all appears to be physics-related; a given station has no lag whatsoever in the VAB where it's just visual rendering, but when the physics are active it becomes unplayable.

I agree with the poster from the previous page regarding the excessive physics. It's funny and amusing the first few times you see a rocket wobble it's way to orbit, but once you're over it the physics become a headache that isn't worth the considerable system resources that appear to be devoted to it. NASA's rockets aren't held together with rubber bands, and I don't see why mine need to be. At least give us a settings option to switch to simple physics that don't bend, wobble, stretch, and oscillate all over the place.

I know it's still a beta and everything but you guys are on Steam now and I'm sure are making serious money as a result, so don't end up like Mojang where your founder pockets $100 million and years of "development" later the game is still buggy, unoptimized, and relatively unchanged.

[NeoMorph]

Hmmmm so the wobble is excessive physics eh?

This is a quote regarding Apollo 6.... and the excessive wobble it had...

“The oscillations are like a jack hammer and it was so dreadful on Apollo 6 that it tore off a panel on the booster, and threatened the mission,†said Woodfill. “Apollo 6′s orbit was supposed to be circular, but because of the pogo effect and failure of second stage engines, the orbit became an elongated orbit of about 60 by 180 miles.â€Â

Just have a read through this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_6 - Apollo 6 was a right cluster fluff. Jeb must have designed and built it.

Edited June 8, 2013 by NeoMorph

[Shadow86]

What if something swooshes by just close enough to hit one of those ladders, lights, or batteries? It should probably knock off that part instead of making the entire fuel tank explode. The individuality of parts goes beyond wobble.

People keep flat out saying "it doesn't make a difference" but really it does. The benefit gained form not having to process them individually might outweigh that cost, but you can't just completely discount it like it doesn't exist.

And I don't mean to just pick on you, I just picked your post to quote, but multiple people seem to have that same opinion and I don't like the distinction being denied. It's a pro/con measurement that deserves analysis IMO.

That sounds more like a collision map issue, which could be modelled without calculating the full physics of a given part.

I'm just pondering possible optimization paths, since I believe physics representation needn't be 100% accurate at all times.

[j-tk]

Here's a ? maybe a Dev or a Mod (or anyone can answer) what Version (other than Pro of course) does the game run on?

Was wondering if it's 2.6+ or Unity Pro 4.0. 4.0 if their not already running it, would be good down the line for this and many other

Indie game developers as it will finally allow you to use Dx11 and make/offload GPU calls.

As to the OP, check what another poster said about Kerbals- I found out that as as well, once your station gets above 12 Kerbals,

things go haywire (probably from all the Random Button pushing, IE Bob: wonder what this lever does)