Performance Issues Need Addressed

[Caelib]

As much as I would LOVE to see a bunch of new content added in .22, let's not forget about the elephant in the room (performance). Aside from the sputtering and stuttering of sound/frames, transitioning between the space center and buildings/missions is actually SLOWER than it was in .20 for me.

I love the game, but the performance issues are currently a large source of frustration for me. I have a brand new system with a top-of-the-line processor, a high-end SSD, 16GB of RAM and a GeForce GTX 760 video card and the game doesn't run very smooth -- I get sputtering and stuttering of sound, lagged physics of ships with less than 150 parts, and scene transitions are very slow.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Caelib

[spikeyhat09]

if your lagging at 150 parts, then i question whether your CPU is really "top of the line".

what operating system are you using? ive tried running the game on the linux mint side of my hard drive, but the performance was agonizingly slow. also running crappy ones like windows vista could cause slowdowns.

make sure you dont have any/many CPU intensive things running in the background.

in order to diagnose you're problem, more information in needed. please include

the exact CPU you have

operating system (also 32/64 bit)

perhaps even the type and speed of your ram

if all else fails, set the graphics settings to lowest, and go into the settings.cfg file and change all the values under kerbin ocean to 1

[Caelib]

Here's my current system build:

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/Caelib/saved/24mL

I wouldn't describe my problem as lag, but rather an intermittent hitch/stutter/sputter. I play many games and I run most of them on ultra settings and they are smooth as butter ... this is a problem with the game KSP, not my system.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Caelib

[Burninate]

Go to settings.

Set Max Persistent Debris to 25.

Set Max Physics Delta-Time Per Frame to 0.03.

Come back and tell us if you still have an issue.

[manatee321]

dont forget its still in alpha so all things can not be ironed out

i have a good system as well i7 2600k, gtx 670 and my game does stutter at times but it doesnt bother me much

btw everything is maxed out except ground scatter

[Stealth2668]

Don't complain. Some of us have mid range pc's. Forget about building a big station in space and forget about building a big rocket to launch a big load. We only get half the fun you do.

[ferram4]

Try looking at what your CPU is doing while you play KSP using the Resource Manager. KSP's only making use of one core for the physics (which is where the the bottleneck is) and so you want to make sure that your processor is running that core at the maximum frequency it can handle; if it isn't running the maximum frequency the whole time it's probably overheating a bit and you'd be well served by getting in there with a can of compressed air and cleaning out any dust that's built up in there.

The next thing to do is to make absolutely sure that KSP is using your dedicated GPU; since you have the integrated GPU on that CPU KSP might be trying to use that instead. Try right-clicking on the program and look under "Run with graphics processor" and see which one is labelled as "default." If it isn't the GeForce, then you should be able to switch it permanently in the Nvidia 3d Settings, though you'll have to add KSP to the list of programs since it won't appear in there by default.

If both of those are the case, then you can set everything to max and try comparing the framerates between max graphics and min graphics using fraps or some similar utility. I suspect that they will be very similar, the only difference being the fps drop when looking at the ground due to the terrain rendering (which is still very unoptimized, particularly the ocean). If that's the case you should try going into the settings.cfg file and find the terrain sections labelled "ocean" for each planet and set the subdivisions to much lower numbers than they are currently. They won't render properly at all with that, but the framerate will increase to something far more manageable.

Besides that, make sure that Windows Aero is turned off and try setting KSP to have "high" priority using the "processes" tab of the Task Manager, which will help prevent any other programs you're running from getting in the way of KSP.

The main thing to keep in mind is that the vast majority of games have a much higher load put on the GPU than the CPU; KSP is the other way around. Hope all of this helps.

[spikeyhat09]

holy crappity sh*t stick, that is one smokin a$$ rig. there is no reason why you should be lagging unless you have oodles and oodles (like multiple thousands) of parts. im going to assume this isnt a troll thread, and that you actually have an issue.

i really dont know what the deuce could be going wrong. try a fresh install with no mods

[_Aramchek_]

lagged physics of ships with less than 150 parts, and scene transitions are very slow.

You shouldn't be. I don't get any "lag" (it's actually slowdown I wish people would use the right term) until around 500 parts or so, your graphics card is meaningless in this game, the game doesn't even push a 460 gtx.

What cpu do you have? And more importantly what speed do you have it running at?

Your cpu is the bottleneck here, no matter what cpu you have.

To the rest, I think people just need to accept you're playing an alpha version of a game, performance increases are going to be lower on the list and rightly so.

People need to get over it a a bit.

You're not going to like me saying this, but it is your setup, not the game, you probably are going to want to overclock your cpu.

[Caelib]

It's all clean ... new rig, new install, etc. I just want to be clear that it's not laggy like when you build ships with 500+ parts ... it's hitchy/stutters ... for example, the rocket thrust and sound sputters every 5 seconds for about 1/2 a second with 100-part crafts. This occurs with a fresh install of KSP, no mods, no saves, stock settings. I experience this problem on my previous machine (4 years old), but I though for sure I wouldn't experience this same issue on a completely brand new, high-end system.

Also let me place more emphasis on the loading times for the space center. While the new Space Center scene is pretty, the transitions are at least twice as slow as before the update. This holds true on my previous and new machine.

So, in summary what I am saying here is that I have seen almost no performance gain between a brand new, high-end system and a 4 year-old system.

[_Aramchek_]

It's all clean ... new rig, new install, etc. I just want to be clear that it's not laggy like when you build ships with 500+ parts ... it's hitchy/stutters ... for example, the rocket thrust and sound sputters every 5 seconds for about 1/2 a second with 100-part crafts. This occurs with a fresh install of KSP, no mods, no saves, stock settings. I experience this problem on my previous machine (4 years old), but I though for sure I wouldn't experience this same issue on a completely brand new, high-end system.

Also let me place more emphasis on the loading times for the space center. While the new Space Center scene is pretty, the transitions are at least twice as slow as before the update. This holds true on my previous and new machine.

Hitching is going to be your pc, even if it plays fine in other games, as to the exact source, could be several things really. Do you have v-sync on? And if so, do you have normal v-sync or adaptive?

[legodragonxp]

Just chiming in here, there is a performance drop in .21 that has both sound and loading time hits, there is also a major performance hit when dropping out of time compression while entering new SOIs. I'm running a decent system and have KSP and the system swap file running off a SSD instead of platters... there is something up with .21. (win7 64 bit). At 11pm at a night I'm not going to write up a huge study or tear everything apart to find it right now, but Caelib is not alone.

-Lego

[Rassa Farlander]

I dont think there is an immediate priority on performance, although I feel it is something that should be addressed in the coming months if KSP is to stay competitive as a video game.

[rpayne88]

That is the limitation of 32-bit applications. They can only use a single core and 4GB of RAM. I get the same thing some times despite the fact I have a quad-core, 8GB, and 64-bit Windows 7. I would like to see Squad either make a 64-bit version of KSP or writes a program into the game that uses ALL available resources a system has to offer.

[Crom]

It's all clean ... new rig, new install, etc. I just want to be clear that it's not laggy like when you build ships with 500+ parts ... it's hitchy/stutters ... for example, the rocket thrust and sound sputters every 5 seconds for about 1/2 a second with 100-part crafts. This occurs with a fresh install of KSP, no mods, no saves, stock settings. I experience this problem on my previous machine (4 years old), but I though for sure I wouldn't experience this same issue on a completely brand new, high-end system.

Also let me place more emphasis on the loading times for the space center. While the new Space Center scene is pretty, the transitions are at least twice as slow as before the update. This holds true on my previous and new machine.

So, in summary what I am saying here is that I have seen almost no performance gain between a brand new, high-end system and a 4 year-old system.

Try removing all mods, I tried to use Mechjeb to compare some of my rocket designs and it killed my FPS, making it completely unplayable.

I dont think there is an immediate priority on performance, although I feel it is something that should be addressed in the coming months if KSP is to stay competitive as a video game.

At some point, it becomes pointless to add more parts and features because game performance is handicapping your designs and large space stations are impossible to build for vast majority of people. I'm running 3570K@4,6Ghz and already at 500 parts the FPS drops down to single-digits.

[Tiron]

That is the limitation of 32-bit applications. They can only use a single core and 4GB of RAM. I get the same thing some times despite the fact I have a quad-core, 8GB, and 64-bit Windows 7. I would like to see Squad either make a 64-bit version of KSP or writes a program into the game that uses ALL available resources a system has to offer.

This is so not true it makes me want to laugh, frankly. The 4GB RAM limitation is correct, but mostly only because it's imposed by windows. That said, for most programs 4GB is a *lot*, even for an unoptimized one like KSP. Unless you're running a LOT of equally unoptimized mods, it should be plenty.

The 'can only run on a single core' thing is NOT a 32 bit limitation, it is in fact a Unity Engine limitation. Imposed in part because they haven't bothered to add multithreading support and in part because they use an ancient version of PhysX that doesn't support multithreading either. The former MIGHT be curable now with a Unity add-on called 'Loom', but I doubt it'd help us any because our real problem is the PHYSICS not being multithreaded, which Loom can't do anything about I'm pretty sure.

Hitching is going to be your pc, even if it plays fine in other games, as to the exact source, could be several things really. Do you have v-sync on? And if so, do you have normal v-sync or adaptive?

My experience is that periodic 'Hitching' during a flight is generally caused by...alt tabbing out of the full screen game. KSP really doesn't handle it very well, with it frequently resulting in either or both of short duration, periodic freezes or parts of the font going corrupt causing unreadable...well everything with text on it. Restarting the game cures it.

[bsalis]

The stuttering you see in KSP is a Unity3D thing. You can google it.

It may be the garbage collector doing its thing but that is speculation. Other explanation is that Unity3D is, itself, garbage.

[NeoMorph]

As much as I would LOVE to see a bunch of new content added in .22, let's not forget about the elephant in the room (performance). Aside from the sputtering and stuttering of sound/frames, transitioning between the space center and buildings/missions is actually SLOWER than it was in .20 for me.

I love the game, but the performance issues are currently a large source of frustration for me. I have a brand new system with a top-of-the-line processor, a high-end SSD, 16GB of RAM and a GeForce GTX 760 video card and the game doesn't run very smooth -- I get sputtering and stuttering of sound, lagged physics of ships with less than 150 parts, and scene transitions are very slow.

Yup... but here is some black magic for you... Read the top post on this page --> BloodyRain2k Plugin Fixes A Lot

I was pretty dubious but as 0.21.1 was running slower than 0.20.2 I decided to try it and now I am back to 20.2 loading speeds and it runs a lot smoother (and doesn't seem to crash as often). It also fixed Kethane for me...

[ASnogarD]

I noticed a definite performance hit with the new update, but mostly in the transitions from VAB -> Launchpad (also noted that SPH moused movement is so much smoother and faster than VAB but as I very rarely look at the SPH I didnt notice how it was like before), the transition is slow even with something silly like a lander can on some structural plates like I use to test out Kerbal assisted maneuvers (boarding a command seat vehicle, or testing KAS).

Its not mods as I noted this slow transition BEFORE I added any mods after a new download of KSP from Steam.

It is getting a bit tiresome when you just want to test out something like landing leg range, and it takes something like 10 - 30 sec to get onto the pad with a tiny lander and some legs.

I cant say for sure but I think the transition times gets longer the longer you are in game, memory leak maybe, just seems that way when I go on a mad craft design spree.

[CaptainCrunch]

dont forget its still in alpha so all things can not be ironed out

i have a good system as well i7 2600k, gtx 670 and my game does stutter at times but it doesnt bother me much

btw everything is maxed out except ground scatter

So kind of a gee whiz dumb question here but I always see people throw out that this game is still in Alpha testing. What exactly is the difference between alpha and beta testing? I always assumed that alpha testing is considered to be in house and/or limited release and beta is a wide release or just the public at large. Is there something specific that changes this to a beta?

Edited August 4, 2013 by CaptainCrunch
A word

[Tiron]

So kind of a gee whiz dumb question here but I always see people throw out that this game is still in Alpha testing. What exactly is the difference between alpha and beta testing? I always assumed that alpha testing is considered to be in house and/or limited release and beta is a wide release or just the public at large. Is there something specific that changes this to a beta?

Basically, is the game 'Done' or not.

Alpha is an unfinished software product, with major, core features incomplete or missing because they're still being developed.

A Beta is, more or less 'done' (it may have some placeholders for certain things), but still needs testing to check functionality, look for bugs, in the case of games check difficulty and balance, etc.

The key point is what's going on with the development: Are major features still being developed and added? It's an Alpha. Is all the major stuff done and most of what's left is just refinement of what's already there? Beta.

Although note that sometimes features will get dropped to move it along to 'Beta' faster, and similarly Betas will sometimes more or less get issued as release products, because the managers are tired of not making any money off it.

Edit: Usually Alpha testing is done in-house, yes, for the simple reason that, well, it's not finished yet. KSP is an exception due to it being an Indie Game: They're basically selling the game at a discount, with access to the Alpha versions, in order to finance the game. This means it's a lot more polished than is the norm for an Alpha.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Tiron

[jfx]

Alpha and Beta have lost their original meanings for games during the last few years. This applies to KSP too. Defining alphas and betas in terms of feature complete et cetera no longer works in this context.

and for OPs stuttering problem:

Everyone gets it, don't expect it to be fixed soon. See:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/42877-CPU-Performance-Database?p=548962&viewfull=1#post548962

Closing UI windows helps a little

[xeon_1]

The stuttering you see in KSP is a Unity3D thing. You can google it.

It may be the garbage collector doing its thing but that is speculation. Other explanation is that Unity3D is, itself, garbage.

Unity isn't garbage but its not too keen on using the resources a pc has just like most other game engine out there.

Cpu's have had multiple cores for what now a decade?.

Yet only a handful of games in that decade can use multiple cores most are still single core engines.

Same whit 64bit adaption.

A bunch of excuses that they can only use 4gig ram on a +64bit machine and only 3gig with the large adress aware flag on 32bit machines.

I simply don't understand why game developers don't get of there lazy asses and use a pc's full potential instead of limiting themselves to the Pentium 4 age.

3D drawing / CAD / Photo edit / video edit / video codec / ... all these types of programs are able to use the full power of any pc you throw at them.

Yet games can't?

Why not?

[magnemoe]

I have an old 6 core amd cpu, the model before bulldozer. Game runs relative smoothly with 500 parts ships.

My main problem is memory, however as I understand the problem with 64 bit is that the game crashes without any good explonation.

I guess they just wait, if they are very lucky some unity updates fixes, if not its not wort doing a lot of work fixing an bug who might show up again later.

[AlternNocturn]

Performance improvements are in every update, don't forget that. If something breaks and the game starts to play like pants you can almost guarantee that it'll be fixed within the next few updates.

Also, this is in the wrong forum I think.

I simply don't understand why game developers don't get of there lazy asses

Because forget the fact that game development is difficult, if they don't do something you want obviously they're being lazy.

Edited August 4, 2013 by AlternNocturn