Jump to content

Ksp ram

Hexaphobia

By Hexaphobia
in KSP1 Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Xorth Tanovar

Xorth Tanovar

Posted
Posted

Considering that's right at the limit for any 32-bit program, you've hit the wall. How many/what type of plugins are you using; or is it a case of the rockets being too complex construction-wise (a.k.a. too many parts)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Xorth Tanovar

Xorth Tanovar

Posted
Posted

The hardware can address up to the full 4 GB, the limit will be imposed on the OS you're using, and the limitations of the Unity engine....32-bit app would need to leave some space available for the OS to operate, else it wouldn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redjoker

Redjoker

Posted
Posted

the exact number is 3.54GB which is the limit that a 32-bit application or OS. So if I am right and the 3.1GB is the apps current usage then you can load some more mods but you only use 450MB and if you only have 4GB of ram then the OS is probably using it. If that is the case then you are at the limit of mods that you can use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NeMeSiS

NeMeSiS

Posted
Posted
the exact number is 3.54GB which is the limit that a 32-bit application or OS. So if I am right and the 3.1GB is the apps current usage then you can load some more mods but you only use 450MB and if you only have 4GB of ram then the OS is probably using it. If that is the case then you are at the limit of mods that you can use.

It is not exactly 3.54GB, it is dependent on the rest of your hardware. Though usually somewhere between 3.1 and 3.5 on most PCs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tiron

Tiron

Posted
Posted

It depends on a lot of things. What OS are you running, is it 32 bit or 64 bit, how much RAM do you have installed? How much RAM does your Vidcard have(If you're on a 32 bit system)?

If you're running on Windows 7 64 bit you can in theory run right up to the full 4 GB if you have that much free (which realistically would mean you need at least 6GB actually installed), because that's what WoW64 gives it if it's got the Large Address Aware flag set (otherwise it's limited to 2GB, I believe). That's one of the advantages of running on a 64 bit windows system: even 32 bit programs get access to more memory because they don't have to share their 4GB with the OS.

Although the 4GB limit for 32 bit systems is a bit silly anyway... it's enforced as a licensing restriction by Microsoft, allegedly because of compatibility problems but I suspect probably more because it gave them another thing on their 'list of reasons to upgrade'. In order to use Data Execution Protection (under any of various names), they HAVE to enable the use of Physical Address Extension, which on an x86-64 processor gives access to up to 48 bits of physical address space (enough for 256 TB). Windows Server 2003 Datacenter edition uses this to support up to 128 GB of RAM on the 32 bit version. Microsoft disabled the ability to use it to raise the amount of memory above 4GB (including video memory) on 32 bit consumer OSes starting in XP service pack 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thirstyemu

thirstyemu

Posted
Posted
Although the 4GB limit for 32 bit systems is a bit silly anyway... it's enforced as a licensing restriction by Microsoft...

It's not at all, further to that, it's actually quite simple math:

Step 1: Add up all the bits as per binary instruction - 1+2+4+8+16+32+...+536870912+1073741824+2147483648 = 4294967295

Step 2: Divide by 1024 to get to KB - 4294967295/1024 = 4194304

Step 3: Repeat Step 2 to convert to MB - 4194304/1024 = 4096 (look familiar yet?)

Doing this again nets you 4GB of accessible data. Not an imposed limitation, a general software limitation imposed by all systems running in 32-bit processes running on fixed point binary systems.

The only way around this is to implement PAE systems, which on most home systems, slow them down by far too much as your CPU would then need to calculate the differences in page directories (the first 2^10 bits for 4GB which starts to become a huge amount of cycles to impose on a CPU) hence why this has only been implemented on a few server builds that run hundreds or thousands of cores of processing power. However, nowadays it is just much cheaper, faster and simpler to implement 64-bit structures which as you say, can access up to 2TB in un-molested form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Masked Turk

Masked Turk

Posted
Posted

Chaps, I know in the 'do not ask' thread it mentions 64-bit software as one of those topics, but: is that because it's planned, or because it'll never happen?

I've got 8GB to expend on accelerating Kerbals to interstellar corners of space, damnit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scruffy

Mr. Scruffy

Posted
Posted

Well, but if the game hits the wall (regardless of where that wall is, or what causes it), it should still not just crash away, right? A massive slowdown (say due to disc-swapping or whatnot) is acceptable, maybe, but just going ´good-bye´ is something that should be taken care of, asap, imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
magnemoe

magnemoe

Posted
Posted
It depends on a lot of things. What OS are you running, is it 32 bit or 64 bit, how much RAM do you have installed? How much RAM does your Vidcard have(If you're on a 32 bit system)?

If you're running on Windows 7 64 bit you can in theory run right up to the full 4 GB if you have that much free (which realistically would mean you need at least 6GB actually installed), because that's what WoW64 gives it if it's got the Large Address Aware flag set (otherwise it's limited to 2GB, I believe). That's one of the advantages of running on a 64 bit windows system: even 32 bit programs get access to more memory because they don't have to share their 4GB with the OS.

Although the 4GB limit for 32 bit systems is a bit silly anyway... it's enforced as a licensing restriction by Microsoft, allegedly because of compatibility problems but I suspect probably more because it gave them another thing on their 'list of reasons to upgrade'. In order to use Data Execution Protection (under any of various names), they HAVE to enable the use of Physical Address Extension, which on an x86-64 processor gives access to up to 48 bits of physical address space (enough for 256 TB). Windows Server 2003 Datacenter edition uses this to support up to 128 GB of RAM on the 32 bit version. Microsoft disabled the ability to use it to raise the amount of memory above 4GB (including video memory) on 32 bit consumer OSes starting in XP service pack 2.

Yes it might be to push Vista, however it might also be compatibility problems, it exist an 64 bit windows XP, however its an rebuild of the 64 bit windows server 2003. So it might be more an way to get people over on 64 bit. Each program would still be restricted to 4GB unless they split themselves into multiple independent processes.

For KSP they have tried to make an 64bit version but it kept crashing for unknown reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
_Aramchek_

_Aramchek_

Posted
Posted
Well, but if the game hits the wall (regardless of where that wall is, or what causes it), it should still not just crash away, right? A massive slowdown (say due to disc-swapping or whatnot) is acceptable, maybe, but just going ´good-bye´ is something that should be taken care of, asap, imho.

IMHO people should realize that they are playing an ALPHA build of the game, things will get fixed I'm sure, but for the moment...accept it for what it is, not what it will be.

Besides I doubt anyone who doesn't load their game with mods ever has to worry about running in to the memory limit so long as they have 4 gb's of ram, vanilla KSP uses just about 2gb's, slightly lower in fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dlmarti

dlmarti

Posted
Posted
IMHO people should realize that they are playing an ALPHA build of the game, things will get fixed I'm sure, but for the moment...accept it for what it is, not what it will be.

Besides I doubt anyone who doesn't load their game with mods ever has to worry about running in to the memory limit so long as they have 4 gb's of ram, vanilla KSP uses just about 2gb's, slightly lower in fact.

Why would anyone think the game was an ALPHA build?

"Still in development" does not mean ALPHA, heck it does not even mean BETA.

This KSP is a release version, well past BETA, and ALPHA is so far in the past you can forget it.

ALPHA code, means controlled releases to expectant customers, with no guarantee of future commitments.

BETA code, means of gauging user acceptance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
XaTriX

XaTriX

Posted
Posted

I've just that with 0.21.1 :

At launch screen : 1424.7Mo

Ah KSC : 1426.9Mo

In VAB with a 480part vessel : 1665.0Mo

At launchpad with same vessel : 1783.3Mo at 9fps (i7 3770k & 670GTX)

I'll upadte after few moments of gaming.

I'll also try to inject' KSP into a ram disk (i've 32gb) :D

XaT

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galileo Kerbonaut

Galileo Kerbonaut

Posted
Posted

I'll also try to inject' KSP into a ram disk (i've 32gb) :D

XaT

Does that help in any way? What's the difference between clicking an icon, start the game from disc and load everything into RAM or copy the install folder to RAM manually and start from there? Either way, it needs to be read from harddrive first since RAM is volatile. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galileo Kerbonaut

Galileo Kerbonaut

Posted
Posted
http://reboot.pro/topic/15593-faqs-and-how-tos/ !

Make RAM disk, autoload a disk & saving disk, etc. Seems awesome !

XaT

I already have a RAM disc, but I'm not using it for installing applications. I use it for temporary files, you know: internet cache, RAR, zip etc. I use a shareware program, it's free and works great. I wouldn't want to go to the trouble of copying KSP to RAM each time I restart my computer (at least once a day), but hey if it works for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
numerobis

numerobis

Posted
Posted

KSP seems to hit the hard drive a lot for some reason, so putting it in ramdisk (or even just an SSD) makes it faster.

At 4 GB RAM, I have to say, KSP is a bit painful to run. I can run it happily, but I'd better browse the forum on another computer. If they switched to a 64-bit player, I'd have to order more RAM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...