Slow FPS, lag and other limiting factors of Kerbal..

[Dewm]

So I just got done browsing through another thread on this forum about lag and low frame rates.. and I didn't feel my comments belonged in that section.. But here is what I have to say..

The lag and low FPS is almost game breaking... I know some of you have OC'd your comps to 4.5Ghz and claim not to have any issues, that's fine and dandy.. but someone should not have to void the warranty on their CPU to play an indie game.. plain and simple.

And I know most of you will be like "just get a better comp brah"

i7 960 3.4GHz processor

Radeon 8570 GPU

24GB ram

...My computer isn't the issue.

The issue is, this game was not thought out well, and has not been managed well. I know squad doesn't have any control over Unity I understand that, I do a fair amount of programming myself and know the limitations of Unity, but there are plenty of workarounds for that engine. (Or just a new engine all together). Either way I think alot of this should be dealt with before they start doing stuff like "career mode"

we need a good foundation before they start adding "fluff" on.

I know most of you are super fanboys and will come on here and hate on me and whatever.. I don't really care. I enjoy this game alot, but when my $3200.00 comp is chugging with 400 parts on the screen.. there is a problem.

"Just chill dude its still in alpha.. its supposed to be rough"

...lol, its been in "alpha" for over 2 years now, when did calling a game "alpha" become an excuse to release half finished product? I've been down this road before, (with Minecraft) it was released and it had huge issues, but people were like "its just alpha, you only paid $10.00 for it" and then time past, and they ignored huge engine and performance issues and just kept adding fluff on..and finally after like 3 years it was "released" and its still pretty much in alpha stage, some of the huge limitations of that game still plague it, because they wont' take the time to fix it.. the same thing will happen with this game.

[Tiron]

So I just got done browsing through another thread on this forum about lag and low frame rates.. and I didn't feel my comments belonged in that section.. But here is what I have to say..

The lag and low FPS is almost game breaking... I know some of you have OC'd your comps to 4.5Ghz and claim not to have any issues, that's fine and dandy.. but someone should not have to void the warranty on their CPU to play an indie game.. plain and simple.

And I know most of you will be like "just get a better comp brah"

i7 960 3.4GHz processor

Radeon 8570 GPU

24GB ram

...My computer isn't the issue.

The issue is, this game was not thought out well, and has not been managed well. I know squad doesn't have any control over Unity I understand that, I do a fair amount of programming myself and know the limitations of Unity, but there are plenty of workarounds for that engine. (Or just a new engine all together). Either way I think alot of this should be dealt with before they start doing stuff like "career mode"

we need a good foundation before they start adding "fluff" on.

I know most of you are super fanboys and will come on here and hate on me and whatever.. I don't really care. I enjoy this game alot, but when my $3200.00 comp is chugging with 400 parts on the screen.. there is a problem.

"Just chill dude its still in alpha.. its supposed to be rough"

...lol, its been in "alpha" for over 2 years now, when did calling a game "alpha" become an excuse to release half finished product? I've been down this road before, (with Minecraft) it was released and it had huge issues, but people were like "its just alpha, you only paid $10.00 for it" and then time past, and they ignored huge engine and performance issues and just kept adding fluff on..and finally after like 3 years it was "released" and its still pretty much in alpha stage, some of the huge limitations of that game still plague it, because they wont' take the time to fix it.. the same thing will happen with this game.

Okay. First, Alpha means 1.) Half Finished, 2.) Not Released. Think of it as getting early access in exchange for buying a severely discounted pre-order. Tons of games do it, just not this early in the process generally, but most games don't do it to fund the development.

Second, there simply ISN'T a better base to build from without starting over at this point. The game relies almost entirely on Unity's ancient, single-threaded PhysX. Last I heard, the One-man project to make a Bullet Engine plugin for Unity seems to be abandoned, as well as unfinished and unreleased, and there's literally no other options.

If you, as you try to claim, know ways to work around it, tell us! How do you get Unity to run multithreaded Rigidbody physics simulations. This is the one thing that holds KSP's performance back more than anything else, so if you really know a way nobody else has thought of in all this time to do that, do us a favor and enlighten us.

[regex]

I know most of you are super fanboys and will come on here and hate on me and whatever.. I don't really care. I enjoy this game alot, but when my $3200.00 comp is chugging with 400 parts on the screen.. there is a problem.

From the looks of it my i3 laptop probably handles 450 parts better than your i7-whatever, because it was a perfectly playable launch, lag or not. So redefine your standards when playing KSP and patiently wait for improvements to this piece of alpha software. One of the devs is looking into a later version of Unity for the future, that will probably help.

If it's that bad, though, you should probably just play other games.

[Johnno]

At what point did you decide that large part counts should be the 'foundation' of the game? I've visited nearly every single planet and moon in the game, with kerbals, I've built space stations, ground bases and flown airplanes/spaceplanes. Yes, I can't put together a 400+ part craft without lagging either, but I know that, I anticipate that, I design for it. It's such an unreal expectation that just because you pay for a game you should be able to dictate how it's supposed to work. The game is what it is right now, there's no way around it, I love every bit about it. I wish I could build bigger but I decide not to because I know it'll lag, which would decrease my enjoyment.

But how does the preknowledge of impending lag decrease your enjoyment? Are you really unable to enjoy the game with the knowledge of its current limitations? Could, should, would, doesn't matter. It's what it is right now, we can't break the laws of physics and magically make it something else.

Yes I'm one of those "super fanboys", but the fact is that this is the first game I've found in over 15 years that actually challenges me, that interests me and that makes me dream. Even with all of its shortcomings I find myself spending hour after hour in front of it, every day. And here you are, unable to enjoy it because you can't throw together something with immense part count. Why? Because you want big beautiful and shiny?

See it as a challenge. Test yourself, challenge yourself to get to places without lag, challenge yourself to do things with less. And if at the end of the day it isn't challenging, or fun, or enjoyable at the very least, then don't bother. Just leave, chalk it off to another 'crap game' bought and go search for your next fancy.

Personally I've found mine... it's KSP.

Super Fanboy #117 has completed his rant.

[OtherDalfite]

Yeah, I'll agree KSP does need some thought put into how terrain is handled, as right now it is a very slow, computer intensive bit of the game, and probably the most intensive (on my part, at least). The ocean, a flat barren sea of blue makes my normal 40-60 FPS chug down to a grueling 15-20. I'm aware that Unity supports only 1 core for PhysX calculations, but what about terrain?

EDIT:

@Johnno

I think OP is having more trouble with his terrain than with parts, as you really don't have to worry about that until you get way up into the 300+ part counts.

[Tiron]

Yeah, I'll agree KSP does need some thought put into how terrain is handled, as right now it is a very slow, computer intensive bit of the game, and probably the most intensive (on my part, at least). The ocean, a flat barren sea of blue makes my normal 40-60 FPS chug down to a grueling 15-20. I'm aware that Unity supports only 1 core for PhysX calculations, but what about terrain?

Well, it actually only supports one core for...er, well everything, actually. The physics is the part that's the biggest problem, though, because it's far more intensive than everything else. Hell, just being able to run the physics on a separate core from everything else would help, probably even with what you mentioned.

[esinohio]

At what point did you decide that large part counts should be the 'foundation' of the game? I've visited nearly every single planet and moon in the game, with kerbals, I've built space stations, ground bases and flown airplanes/spaceplanes. Yes, I can't put together a 400+ part craft without lagging either, but I know that, I anticipate that, I design for it. It's such an unreal expectation that just because you pay for a game you should be able to dictate how it's supposed to work. The game is what it is right now, there's no way around it, I love every bit about it. I wish I could build bigger but I decide not to because I know it'll lag, which would decrease my enjoyment.

But how does the preknowledge of impending lag decrease your enjoyment? Are you really unable to enjoy the game with the knowledge of its current limitations? Could, should, would, doesn't matter. It's what it is right now, we can't break the laws of physics and magically make it something else.

Yes I'm one of those "super fanboys", but the fact is that this is the first game I've found in over 15 years that actually challenges me, that interests me and that makes me dream. Even with all of its shortcomings I find myself spending hour after hour in front of it, every day. And here you are, unable to enjoy it because you can't throw together something with immense part count. Why? Because you want big beautiful and shiny?

See it as a challenge. Test yourself, challenge yourself to get to places without lag, challenge yourself to do things with less. And if at the end of the day it isn't challenging, or fun, or enjoyable at the very least, then don't bother. Just leave, chalk it off to another 'crap game' bought and go search for your next fancy.

Personally I've found mine... it's KSP.

Super Fanboy #117 has completed his rant.

All this post needs is theme music and it would be perfection.....

[OtherDalfite]

Well, it actually only supports one core for...er, well everything, actually. The physics is the part that's the biggest problem, though, because it's far more intensive than everything else. Hell, just being able to run the physics on a separate core from everything else would help, probably even with what you mentioned.

While the physics may be computer intensive, I think the terrain generation is far more, at least ocean generation. On the Mun and any other bodies without oceans, I get a nice smooth 40-60 FPS even if I have a 200-300 part spacecraft, and it's fine on my decent rig. The fact I can't enjoy flying a plane around Eve, Kerbin, or Laythe is why I'm currently upset with the game. If they are going to have it released now, at least let us enjoy the planet we start on.

[Ralathon]

Well, it actually only supports one core for...er, well everything, actually. The physics is the part that's the biggest problem, though, because it's far more intensive than everything else. Hell, just being able to run the physics on a separate core from everything else would help, probably even with what you mentioned.

Isn't stuff like that limited by the Unity engine though?

Anyway, how about instead of whining that your PC cannot handle a 400 part ship at 100 fps you do something about it. Minimize your building style. Don't just spam struts, actually think about what it is you're building and how it'll react to forces. Do some delta v calculations to figure out how big your ship needs to be. Detach stuff that you don't need anymore.

[Ming]

The OP is pretty much on point and I agree that adding more features ("fluff") is ill-advised at this point in KSP's development milestones. Quite simply, adding more functions will only exasperate an already overloaded and non-optimized core program (Unity).

I absolutely have a love-hate relationship with KSP and have rage-quit and deinstalled it many times because of its sluggish performance. But, I always come slithering back for more. However, at some point its performance, or lack thereof, will become a game stopper for me. The most recent "load time" issues with .21 unfortunately have moved KSP even closer to the non playable door for many. If .22 adds even more "things" that are performance degrading cumulative then it will most likely become intolerable even for whining tech-wimps like me.

So, my thoughts and concerns are along the same lines as the OP. Optimize now, add new stuff after (strengthen your foundation before adding more floors).

Edited August 17, 2013 by Ming

[Tiron]

Isn't stuff like that limited by the Unity engine though?

Anyway, how about instead of whining that your PC cannot handle a 400 part ship at 100 fps you do something about it. Minimize your building style. Don't just spam struts, actually think about what it is you're building and how it'll react to forces. Do some delta v calculations to figure out how big your ship needs to be. Detach stuff that you don't need anymore.

1.) I already said it was limited by unity in my first response to the OP.

2.) I'm not complaining about it, you should keep track of who you're responding to and read the entire thread. The OP hasn't deigned to respond so far.

While the physics may be computer intensive, I think the terrain generation is far more, at least ocean generation. On the Mun and any other bodies without oceans, I get a nice smooth 40-60 FPS even if I have a 200-300 part spacecraft, and it's fine on my decent rig. The fact I can't enjoy flying a plane around Eve, Kerbin, or Laythe is why I'm currently upset with the game. If they are going to have it released now, at least let us enjoy the planet we start on.

I doubt it, especially since it's not so much 'ocean generation' as 'ocean rendering'. One thing to keep in mind here is that there IS a surface beneath the ocean, which isn't just flat and featureless, which complicates the Rendering.

Another thing to keep in mind...Kerbin is bigger than most of the other bodies, so there's a larger surface area visible at one time

My main point though, was that if you somehow (don't ask me how, I don't know) got the Physics running on a separate core, all the resources the physics were using before would be available for that. Assuming that's not just a 'Overloading the GPU because it isn't optimized' Issue, which it well may be.

[Beeman]

See, the problem with optimizing right now is that when they add stuff later...they'll have to optimize everything all over again. So they'll have to spend x amount of time optimizing the engine with every major update...and it'll just add another year or two to the development time.

See, they need to be adding as many big features as they can before they fully optimize everything.

Granted, they do indeed tweak performance as best they can with each update, but we don't need everything running like silk just yet. We're here to test the new features that they add when they add them. It just so happens that we enjoy the gameplay as it is, lag or not. As mentioned, if the framerate dips from super huge part counts really bothers you that much...just take a break. There's other games to play, you can surely burn a month or two playing them(especially with november right around the corner), so go play other things for a while. Then come back to this in an update or two and see how it runs. If it's still causing you grief but you really, really want to play you some KSP, try engineering smaller, more efficient vehicles. You're going to need to if you plan on playing career mode anyways, so may as well get used to it now.

[Dewm]

Isn't stuff like that limited by the Unity engine though?

Anyway, how about instead of whining that your PC cannot handle a 400 part ship at 100 fps you do something about it. Minimize your building style. Don't just spam struts, actually think about what it is you're building and how it'll react to forces. Do some delta v calculations to figure out how big your ship needs to be. Detach stuff that you don't need anymore.

While agree I could minimize my building style.. whats the fun in that?

Shoot you can get everywhere in the solar system on 100 parts.. but then what? the game is about BUILDING.

And alot of people are using this arguement that "it needs to be optimized after everything is added in.. I'm assuming most of you that use that argument haven't seen a piece of code..ever..

Do you think that big games like Halo add in sounds textures guns, maps ships etc.. before they get the engine running smoothly on multiple cores? HA! not a chance..

Truth is there is a difference between "cleaning up code" and actually coding the engine to work on normal computers.

[Tiron]

While agree I could minimize my building style.. whats the fun in that?

Shoot you can get everywhere in the solar system on 100 parts.. but then what? the game is about BUILDING.

And alot of people are using this arguement that "it needs to be optimized after everything is added in.. I'm assuming most of you that use that argument haven't seen a piece of code..ever..

Do you think that big games like Halo add in sounds textures guns, maps ships etc.. before they get the engine running smoothly on multiple cores? HA! not a chance..

Truth is there is a difference between "cleaning up code" and actually coding the engine to work on normal computers.

Problem is, Squad isn't 'Coding the Engine' and doesn't have the capability to do so. As such they're limited to the capabilities available in the Engine. Multithreading in any capacity is not one of them. There IS a Unity plugin now to do multithreading for some things, but my understanding is that it wouldn't work for the physics, which means it wouldn't help us much.

If you want to see this happen, port a better physics engine (PhysX 3 or Bullet, for example) as a Unity plugin. Until someone does that there's basically zero chance of it happening (because Unity has no particular reason to spend a lot of time on Multithreading).

[_Aramchek_]

From the looks of it my i3 laptop probably handles 450 parts better than your i7-whatever, because it was a perfectly playable launch, lag or not. So redefine your standards when playing KSP and patiently wait for improvements to this piece of alpha software. One of the devs is looking into a later version of Unity for the future, that will probably help.

If it's that bad, though, you should probably just play other games.

The thing is, the old C2D architecture is a few generations old now, and yeah your I3 is a stronger cpu in games that aren't heavily threaded.

"3,200$"

Build them, don't buy pre built systems, and if it was 3,200$ 3 years ago, well, I don't know what to tell you aside from things evolve quickly in the pc gaming world.

And as stated here, this is an alpha game, it will run better eventually. And don't hate on my 4.5ghz cpu.

[Ming]

See, the problem with optimizing right now is that when they add stuff later...they'll have to optimize everything all over again. So they'll have to spend x amount of time optimizing the engine with every major update...and it'll just add another year or two to the development time...

What you are most likely eluding to is Knuth's "Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming". That often used structured programming canon, even though widely accepted, is not without its detractors. By contrast there are professional programmers that contend that late optimization implies slipshod design.

Joe Duffy, a Microsoft architect and developer: "I have heard the "premature optimization is the root of all evil" statement used by programmers of varying experience at every stage of the software lifecycle, to defend all sorts of choices, ranging from poor architectures, to gratuitous memory allocations, to inappropriate choices of data structures and algorithms, to complete disregard for variable latency in latency-sensitive situations, among others."

As I see it Squad's prioritization on what game elements are to be included, and when, is the problem. Wasting valuable coding time down the road in an effort to optimize "all of it" may not be viable, and as a result some of those labor intensive KSP features may have to be trimmed or entirely dropped.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Ming

[xeon_1]

So I just got done browsing through another thread on this forum about lag and low frame rates.. and I didn't feel my comments belonged in that section.. But here is what I have to say..

The lag and low FPS is almost game breaking... I know some of you have OC'd your comps to 4.5Ghz and claim not to have any issues, that's fine and dandy.. but someone should not have to void the warranty on their CPU to play an indie game.. plain and simple.

And I know most of you will be like "just get a better comp brah"

i7 960 3.4GHz processor

Radeon 8570 GPU

24GB ram

...My computer isn't the issue.

Sarcastic mode on

I am sorry to tell you but that computer is utter garbage.

Just stop your winning and go somewhere else.

sarcastic mode off.

That was the response i got when i said somthing like you.

Mine is an I7 920 12gig ram amd 7970 and a bunch of other hardware the jackase who said that wouldn't know what it is.

(areca 1222 raid controller raid 6 on 8 drives storage / Mellanox MHEA28-XTC infiband controller / 3 velociraptors raid 0 for os / creative soundblaster audigy 2 zs / watercooled)

Point being don't try to tell them that they need to lay a proper foundation.

The devs/mods and most people on the forum don't care.

[Ming]

... Point being don't try to tell them that they need to lay a proper foundation.

The devs/mods and most people on the forum don't care.

Perhaps you're right, but I really hope you're wrong.

[Tiron]

What you are most likely eluding to is Knuth's "Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming". That often used structured programming canon, even though widely accepted, is not without its detractors. By contrast there are professional programmers that contend that late optimization implies slipshod design.

Joe Duffy, a Microsoft architect and developer: "I have heard the "premature optimization is the root of all evil" statement used by programmers of varying experience at every stage of the software lifecycle, to defend all sorts of choices, ranging from poor architectures, to gratuitous memory allocations, to inappropriate choices of data structures and algorithms, to complete disregard for variable latency in latency-sensitive situations, among others."

As I see it Squad's prioritization on what game elements are to be included, and when, is the problem. Wasting valuable coding time down the road in an effort to optimize "all of it" may not be viable, and as a result some of those labor intensive KSP features may have to be trimmed or entirely dropped.

The problem is that it's not an 'Optimization Problem' (they have, in fact, done some optimization already), it's a 'the Unity engine does not support that feature' problem. You can't 'optimize' something you can't DO in the first place.

The only way multithreaded physics in KSP will ever happen is if a multithreaded physics system is made available for Unity.

Unity themselves have no particular incentive to do it themselves, because honestly, how many of their customers need it?

This means that most likely, in order for this to happen a third party needs to make an alternate physics system available as a unity add-on.

Note that third party means 'Not Unity' and 'Not Squad'.

In other words, unless you're going to go port a physics engine that isn't ancient crap to Unity, there's nothing to discuss here.

[luchelibre]

This....

I do a fair amount of programming myself and know the limitations of Unity...

is proved false by this....

but there are plenty of workarounds for that engine. (Or just a new engine all together)

The arrogance in your ignorance is staggering.

A) When can we expect your release of a multi-threading plugin to Unity? Have you emailed Squad to request they subscribe to your Unity-workaround newsletter?

when did calling a game "alpha" become an excuse to release half finished product?

I'm sorry that game development methodologies have left you behind. Consumers mature enough to have informed consent to Squad's conditions feel for you.

[Tiron]

This....

A) When can we expect your release of a multi-threading plugin to Unity? Have you emailed Squad to request they subscribe to your Unity-workaround newsletter?

Well there IS a multithreading plugin for Unity now, but from looking at it, it didn't really sound like it'd be able to do the Physics, and without the physics being multithreaded, well, it wouldn't do much for us.

[stupid_chris]

Actually, the game is already multithreaded. The real problem is because Unity does not allow most things to be thread safe. This mean, threads can't be separated across multiple cores. The biggest thread right now is physics, and for now it can only be treated by one core, the other stuff is being treated by other cores, but there's barely no calculations left to do. You end up with one core overloaded and the others breezing through. So yes the devs do their very best to optimize the game, but there's not much to do until we get further support from Unity. And no, an engine change is out of question. I'll also remember everyone at the same time that the last two times the devs did structural and optimization updates (I.E. 0.19 and 0.20) there was a massive uproar of "why is there nothing in this update?"

Also, although no one has been over the top for now, I'll just give a friendly reminder to everyone to keep things civil, I can feel the heat rising out of this thread.

Edited August 17, 2013 by stupid_chris

[Tiron]

Actually, the game is already multithreaded. The real problem is because Unity does not allow most things to be thread safe. This mean, threads can't be separated across multiple cores. The biggest thread right now is physics, and for now it can only be treated by one core, the other stuff is being treated by other cores, but there's barely no calculations left to do. You end up with one core overloaded and the others breezing through. So yes the devs do their very best to optimize the game, but there's not much to do until we get further support from Unity. And no, an engine change is out of question. I'll also remember everyone at the same time that when the last two times the devs did structural and optimization updates (I.E. 0.19 and 0.20) there was a massive uproar of "why is there nothing in this update?"

Also, although no one has been over the top for now, I'll just give a friendly reminder to everyone to keep things civil, I can feel the heat rising out of this thread.

...Did not know that. Interesting. I'm honestly not surprised, though.

But everything I'd heard was the Unity was strictly limiting it to one core. Oh well, the more you know I guess

[Dewm]

This....

is proved false by this....

The arrogance in your ignorance is staggering.

A) When can we expect your release of a multi-threading plugin to Unity? Have you emailed Squad to request they subscribe to your Unity-workaround newsletter?

I'm sorry that game development methodologies have left you behind. Consumers mature enough to have informed consent to Squad's conditions feel for you.

Waste of time even responding to this nonsense.. but what the heck, its friday.

quite a few people have already posted a "workaround"... a multi threaded plugin for unity.... can't squad program one?

But no, its not the responsibility of the people actually reaping the rewards of this game (the money)..

this actually cracks me up the more I think about it.. here is what you are saying.

Squad can't optimize the game and there are no work arounds..

unless Dewm ports a good physics engine to work as a Unity plugin.

So what your telling me is....

----> Squad can't do it

then

----> tells me logical way of doing it.

is squad not capable of logic?

.....like I said before, the problem is they are spending their time on "fluff" like career mode.. instead of actually getting a stable platform working. I'm assuming they are pretty capable programmers, Shouldn't take to long to write up a physics engine for Unity. Thats all I'm sayin.

[Tiron]

Waste of time even responding to this nonsense.. but what the heck, its friday.

quite a few people have already posted a "workaround"... a multi threaded plugin for unity.... can't squad program one?

But no, its not the responsibility of the people actually reaping the rewards of this game (the money)..

this actually cracks me up the more I think about it.. here is what you are saying.

Squad can't optimize the game and there are no work arounds..

unless Dewm ports a good physics engine to work as a Unity plugin.

So what your telling me is....

----> Squad can't do it

then

----> tells me logical way of doing it.

is squad not capable of logic?

.....like I said before, the problem is they are spending their time on "fluff" like career mode.. instead of actually getting a stable platform working. I'm assuming they are pretty capable programmers, Shouldn't take to long to write up a physics engine for Unity. Thats all I'm sayin.

Squad are in the business of making a GAME, not in the business of reprogramming an engine. They're not a major development studio with millions of dollars and thousands of employees to throw at such a task. They're a small, indie development studio, many of whom were formerly modders that did exceptionally good quality work.

They'd have to all but stop development on the game for a period of time to do it, and that's assuming they even have anyone with the proper type of programming knowledge in the first place. And if they do, it's probably only a few, and it would sharply limit what the rest of them were able to do with those few completely tied up redesigning the engine.

Given their circumstances it's not really possible for them to devote a lot of resources to something of that magnitude with so little of a return.

As for expecting you to do it, you basically said all along that you could, did you not? We're challenging you to put your money where your mouth is. The fact that it would enormously benefit everyone involved (including you, since Unity plugins generally have to be Paid For) is a complicating factor.

If it's as easy as you say, why are you continuing to troll up the forums rather than just doing it and selling the results?