Ways to increase framerate

[_Zee]

I'm so frustrated right now I can barely see straight. I just spent the past 3 days designing, launching, landing, and connecting 3 separate modules meant to establish a base on the Mun, using Extraplanetary Launchpads and Kethane. By the time I got the 3rd module in range of the 2 that were already on the Mun waiting, my framerate dropped so hard, I could barely navigate the terrain with the rover. After finally getting it to its destination, I connected all 3 modules together, and VOILA! I finally have a fully functioning fully self-sustaining Shipyard on the Mun. This is a huge moment of triumph for me.

But now, EVERY single time I try to load this base up from the tracking center, the game lags so hard and the framerates are so low, that it can't properly render the base with the terrain, and after waiting for 20 seconds for the game to finish loading everything, the entire base just randomly explodes and flies everywhere. I've tried everything, cranking every single setting down and up, nothing helps. My base is just gone now, because that quicksave can't be loaded. The same sharp drop in framerate occurs with my Space Station as well, but for now, it has yet to start randomly exploding.

This is so freaking irritating because I have a very solid computer that should be entirely capable of running this game on max settings with 60+ framerates. I can do this no problem with any other modern-day game that is 100 times more taxing than this one. When are the devs going to update the way the software accesses the user's hardware, and what can be done to ease these problems until then? I absolutely love this game, and I'm furious that it can't be played the way I want to play it.

[Brofessional]

KSP's primary bottleneck is the CPU, physics calculations can only run on a single core due to engine limitations which are out of Squad's control.

There's a slider for the physics delta time in the settings that will slow down time to allow more frames to be rendered when there's a lot of physics calculations going on.

Otherwise the only real option is overclocking your CPU or buying a faster one.

[_Zee]

Otherwise the only real option is overclocking your CPU or buying a faster one.

I don't see how overclocking or buying a faster CPU would help in any way, shape, or form, if the engine is only utilizing one core from the CPU. Buying a faster CPU, would mean increasing my core count. So instead of having 3 cores completely un-utilized, I would instead have 5 or 7 un-utilized.

If Squad designed the engine... how is changing the engine out of their control?

Edited July 2, 2013 by _Zee

[sal_vager]

_Zee, I understand you are upset, any one of us would also be if we lost a major station or base and many of us have actually done so.

KSP's performance is limited by the Unity game engine, it does not do cross-core processes yet, so the physics engine is trying to work in a single core.

It's limited to using the Cpu as well, as Unity doesn't offer hardware physics yet either.

Other games may be more taxing than KSP graphically, but KSP is extremely taxing on your computer just the same, the more parts and the more connections between them, the more stress is placed on your Cpu by the physics calculations.

Lowering the delta time slider can help, as that's the one setting that really affects the number of physics calculations KSP does, and it's better than nothing.

As for the explosions though, so many things can cause that, usually addons, and i can be a nightmare trying to narrow it down.

Squad will do their best to improve the performance of KSP when the Unity technology allows, eventually we'll have 64bit binaries for Windows and OSX, and we'll have multi-threading as soon as Unity supports it.

Also, KSP's unfinished nature means a lot of fine tuning has to wait, as optimized code becomes much harder to change.

[GluttonyReaper]

I think KSP uses the Unity engine, which Squad do not design.

[zzz]

I don't see how overclocking or buying a faster CPU would help in any way, shape, or form, if the engine is only utilizing one core from the CPU. Buying a faster CPU, would mean increasing my core count.

You need cpu with more core clock frequency, not core count, it's means "faster CPU" in more cases, for KSP especially. As well as "overclocking" don't(and can't) increase your core count in any way but increase performance of cores instead.

Edited July 2, 2013 by zzz

[Brofessional]

I don't see how overclocking or buying a faster CPU would help in any way, shape, or form, if the engine is only utilizing one core from the CPU. Buying a faster CPU, would mean increasing my core count. So instead of having 3 cores completely un-utilized, I would instead have 5 or 7 un-utilized.

If Squad designed the engine... how is changing the engine out of their control?

There are more factors to a CPU's performance than just the number of cores. Higher clock speeds and faster architecture can make the individual cores faster.

Also Squad did not design the engine, they license the Unity engine.

[DMagic]

A better CPU will definitely help. But if you just want better performance you have to find ways to create crafts with fewer parts. Extremely complex and interesting stations and bases can be created with under 200 parts. You just have make efficient use of parts.

[_Zee]

There are more factors to a CPU's performance than just the number of cores. Higher clock speeds and faster architecture can make the individual cores faster.

Also Squad did not design the engine, they license the Unity engine.

Sure, you're absolutely right. But my clock rate is 2.8ghz on 4 cores. By no means state of the art, but certainly not "slow". A reasonable upgrade would be... say... a 3.4ghz processor with 6 cores. Now running that CPU on any other game, would potentially cause noticeable increases in performance. But going from a SINGLE core at 2.8 to a SINGLE core at 3.4, really isn't going to make that big of a difference. It certainly wouldn't justify purchasing a new CPU.

And fair enough, Squad didn't design the engine that they are using for their software. But why in the HELL would ANY software company choose to use an antiquated engine that can only utilize a single core?! It's 2013! Do stores even sell new single core processors anymore??? Excuse me for ranting, but that's f***in ridiculous.

[Mr Shifty]

Give me a list of names and addresses for the Unity developers, a book of flight coupons, a brown bag with an apple, a sandwhich, a can of root beer, and a wooden bat with nails hammered into the end with the heads filed down to horrifying sharpness, and I will gladly ensure at no further cost that the Unity engine is updated pronto.

#EDIT: Standing offer.

How odd that the forum rules don't prohibit threats of violence; mods take note. Even if intended as such, I don't find this remotely funny. Unity is one of the greatest things to happen to video gaming in the past decade. It's a unified architecture that they offer for free to anyone who wants to try their hand. There is no modern tool that has more democratized video gaming. And it's the reason there are so many great mods for KSP.

[DMagic]

The simple comparison between clock speeds for different processors isn't really valid; there is much more to it than that, and not just core count. So going from a 2.8 GHz processor to a 3.4 GHz processor could make a huge difference.

The engine isn't old, or antiquated, it just isn't really intended to be used in such physics heavy scenarios. But then it's not really a choice of using an engine that is properly suited to physics vs. the Unity engine. It's more like a choice between having the game as it is now, and not having it at all.

[sal_vager]

How odd that the forum rules don't prohibit threats of violence; mods take note. Even if intended as such, I don't find this remotely funny. Unity is one of the greatest things to happen to video gaming in the past decade. It's a unified architecture that they offer for free to anyone who wants to try their hand. There is no modern tool that has more democratized video gaming. And it's the reason there are so many great mods for KSP.

You're right, it isn't funny.

[Brofessional]

Well depending the model of your CPU and cooler you can get significant results from overclocking. My i5 2500k is 3.3Ghz which I have overclocked to 4.5GHz on air cooling.

Even so, architecture matters as well, not just cores and clock speeds.

As for the engine choice, you have to consider that licensing engines costs money and KSP started as a very small game with a very small budget.

Unity can use multiple cores for rendering, but not for physics. Unity is a relatively new engine and the Unity devs are still updating the engine. Given that KSP is now one of the most popular games using their engine, hopefully they'll add the ability to use multiple cores for physics, and/or GPU physics soon, but it's not an easy task.

[Sethnizzle]

You don't need more cores. You seem to be hung up on that idea. But like everyone else said the best way is to increase the frame rate in ksp is to increase the clock speed per core. I ran into the same problem as you where I built an awesome kethane mining and research base and when I was finished I was getting 10-11 fps. This was on a stock clocked i5 2500k (3.3ghz - 3.7 turbo). I overclocked it to 4.4ghz and saw my frame rate increase to 44-45 fps. This is also with every game setting maxed out (fall back shaders off for the texture bug).

[sierra_seven_]

But now, EVERY single time I try to load this base up from the tracking center, the game lags so hard and the framerates are so low, that it can't properly render the base with the terrain, and after waiting for 20 seconds for the game to finish loading everything, the entire base just randomly explodes and flies everywhere. I've tried everything, cranking every single setting down and up, nothing helps. My base is just gone now, because that quicksave can't be loaded. The same sharp drop in framerate occurs with my Space Station as well, but for now, it has yet to start randomly exploding.

Now, this is just the ponderings of a simple newbie, but I remember reading somewhere that dropping terrain rendering down to lowest has a habit of detonating any grounded structures/rovers/ships for no reason. The terrain doesn't render properly, dropping the base into the floor and promptly crushing it, or something. I reckon that's also why your orbital station survived. Anyway, sorry for your loss mate

[zarakon]

1.

Turn down your lighting and shadows. Lights on bases can cause tons of lag.

2.

If you're using the medium-sized landing legs, those tend to cause this explode-on-load behavior regardless of framerate issues. It seems like they can get twisted or compressed if your craft is too heavy for them, and loading them in this state causes them to spring back with extreme violence. That may not be accurate, but it's what it's looked like when I've had this problem.

A partial solution may be to modify your save file and nudge the altitude of your craft up a bit. This won't actually put your craft in the air since it's tagged as landed, but it can prevent it from loading partially underground or with the legs compressed. Worth trying even if you aren't using these legs, as it's possible that other parts may be capable of the same thing.

Edited July 2, 2013 by zarakon

[_Zee]

Well depending the model of your CPU and cooler you can get significant results from overclocking. My i5 2500k is 3.3Ghz which I have overclocked to 4.5GHz on air cooling.

Even so, architecture matters as well, not just cores and clock speeds.

As for the engine choice, you have to consider that licensing engines costs money and KSP started as a very small game with a very small budget.

Unity can use multiple cores for rendering, but not for physics. Unity is a relatively new engine and the Unity devs are still updating the engine. Given that KSP is now one of the most popular games using their engine, hopefully they'll add the ability to use multiple cores for physics, and/or GPU physics soon, but it's not an easy task.

Allow me to go a bit off-topic here then, in the hopes that maybe I can see an improvement in performance. In the interest of being specific, my current CPU is an Intel i5 2300, at 2.8ghz stock. I run my computer with the tower panels removed and a simple external fan blowing on the motherboard, and the ambient temperature surrounding my tower is always cold (75 degrees or less). How high could I safely OC my CPU and whats the best software to do it? I have experience overclocking my GPU with MSI Afterburner, but for some reason I always strayed away from OC'ing my CPU.

[DMagic]

I'm not really sure there's much you can do with a non 'K' intel part (like the i5 2500K or i7 2700K). Everything else is locked, you can make minor increases in the clock speed, but not the 3.7 to 4.4 GHz jump that Sethnizzle did.

[zarakon]

You would probably want to OC your CPU through your mainboard's BIOS.

Unfortunately, your CPU is not fully unlocked for overclocking, as the "K" models (2500K, 2600K, etc) are. I'm not really familiar with the locked models, but I think they still allow you to bump up the turbo frequency by 400MHz, as long as your motherboard supports it, without messing with voltages or anything. Just look for a BIOS entry for changing the clock multiplier or the turbo multipliers.

[sal_vager]

KSP is also highly sensitive to other running processes, so it's worth seeing if a clean boot helps your performance, and if it does, then try to asses which processes are causing KSP to run slowly for you.

Antivirus is a common cause for issues with KSP.

[Whackjob]

Many computers nowadays have a PhysX card/chip/voodoo spell. It would be nice if they could update the engine to utilize that.

#EDIT: If they do that, I promise you guys with every fiber of my being that I will crank out mad machinery that would make my AEIA Mk3 look puny.

[_Zee]

You would probably want to OC your CPU through your mainboard's BIOS.

Unfortunately, your CPU is not fully unlocked for overclocking, as the "K" models (2500K, 2600K, etc) are. I'm not really familiar with the locked models, but I think they still allow you to bump up the turbo frequency by 400MHz, as long as your motherboard supports it, without messing with voltages or anything. Just look for a BIOS entry for changing the clock multiplier or the turbo multipliers.

I went into my BIOS and there weren't any options for clock speed. Sad Panda.

KSP is also highly sensitive to other running processes, so it's worth seeing if a clean boot helps your performance, and if it does, then try to asses which processes are causing KSP to run slowly for you.

Antivirus is a common cause for issues with KSP.

I'm fairly certain a clean boot isn't necessary. I keep my process list pretty clean. Only forms of antivirus I have running are SpyBot and Malwarebytes.

Again, it's not like I'm having general performance problems. Things run smooth as butter when there's a single object in focus. It's just specific problems, like large stations or bases.

[louiz347]

Does running on Linux gives a better performance? I understand that the linux version already uses 64bits, no?

I was thinking to create a dual boot here with Ubuntu for this purpose.

[zarakon]

Have you tried editing your exploding craft's altitude in the save file?

[leax256]

to answer the origional post.

1) less background programs

2) higher IPC(instructions per cycle) CPUs

3) Overclocking

4)limit ksp to highest numbered cores and limit other stuff to lowest numbered

not much you can do at this point. we are really waiting for better multicore support within unity.