Would you delete stock parts to stay under the 4 Gb limit?

[nhnifong]

As you know, if KSP tries to allocate more than 4 Gb of memory, it crashes. So when trying to load it up with mods you sometimes have to delete stuff. KOSMOS, and the Bobcat American and Soviet packs are pretty big. As is NovaPunch, B9, KW, and there are some large Universe Replacer Textures.

But by far, the largest chunk of memory is taken up by stock parts, And to be honest, I don't even use half of them. So, I typically delete them to make room for more mods. How about you?

Edited August 20, 2013 by nhnifong

[cesarcurado]

I wouldn't do it, it feels like if I do it, I will miss the parts later, so I prefer not to take the risk, but if there was a extremely unmissable and awesome mod I'd do it to a few parts.

[_Aramchek_]

Where is the "I do not use mods" option?

[HeadHunter67]

The only reason I haven't deleted any stock parts is because I like to examine other stock craft for inspiration. Understanding how other players have done something, how something goes together or works, and what's the best way to use it... those are all ways for me to improve my own rocket design and play techniques.

So I've had to be pretty aggressive in cutting out mod stuff that I don't need or use. Basically, once my GameData folder creeps past 1.5GB, that's when crashes begin.

[nhnifong]

Just squeezed by

Mine actually seems to crash at 3.6, and needs some breathing room or it crashes when you load the launch pad. Man I can't wait until 64 bit!

[lincourtl]

Are you kidding? In a few years, those things will be collectable.

[RocketPilot573]

As a person that does not use part packs, I'll just say this: MOST DEFIANTLY NOT!!! Unless I find a way to play the game without fuel tanks, engines, pods, etc...

[somnambulist]

Not parts, but I routinely move 'Spaces' out of the GameData directory. That's 300 MB right there.

[DisarmingBaton5]

I use them too much; no.

[Mr Shifty]

This limit is rather annoying and unnecessary even without 64-bit memory addressing. After all, I never actually use every single part in my GameData folder at the same time. I own zero other games that eat up memory senselessly this way. Why does the game not load parts dynamically? This would make the load times much much shorter, alleviate these memory issues, and make everyone happier. I suspect, also, that there's a memory leak somewhere in the parts loader because I get random crashes if I leave the game running too long.

[The Ideal Gas Lawyer]

Where is the "I do not use mods" option?

Over there with Percy Weasley in the at the "no fun allowed" table

[Sapphire]

I do delete stock parts to make room for more mods.

[LaydeeDem]

I like to mix my engineering with both stock and mods. So, no. I do however delete mod parts to squeeze in more mod parts. My current goal is to have both KW rocketry and B9 aerospace without crashing. So far it's not working.

[leax256]

This limit is rather annoying and unnecessary even without 64-bit memory addressing. After all, I never actually use every single part in my GameData folder at the same time. I own zero other games that eat up memory senselessly this way. Why does the game not load parts dynamically? This would make the load times much much shorter, alleviate these memory issues, and make everyone happier. I suspect, also, that there's a memory leak somewhere in the parts loader because I get random crashes if I leave the game running too long.

because then you would have to go through the loading process every single time a part not in the ram came up. also this would put more emphsas on a need for a faster HD rather than faster/more ram. since I can pick up 8gb+ ram for under $60 and a SSD costs $150+ for a decent one this makes it better on the user in the long run. more so when 64 bit is stable.

[Mr Shifty]

because then you would have to go through the loading process every single time a part not in the ram came up.

Seems there are creative solutions to this problem that many many other games have already implemented, e.g. load all the parts for every vessel in a save when that save is loaded. For the editor, you could give the user a "working tray" of parts that are in memory so you don't get the 1/2 second delay between clicking it and having it loaded into memory. Reading the developer journals, it's apparent that the KSP developers are very capable of coming up with awesome elegant solutions to problems like this.

[CoriW]

Well, typically I don't run into this issue at all since I usually avoid part based mods because it clutters up my parts list. Another reason I avoid part based mods is because stock craft tend to survive updates better than modded craft.

The only mods I use that have parts are Deadly Reentry, Ioncross Crew Support, ISA Mapsat, Kerbal Attachment System, RemoteTech, Procedural Fairings, Quantum Struts, and Procedural Dynamics, however since only two of those aren't listed as [0.21] I don't even have most of those at the moment. Even when I do use them, most of the time the craft is being used for something specifically for that mod, Kethane and ISA Mapsat are good examples, because without the mod itself, the parts are useless and thus the craft with those parts are useless.

Typically when I do have the other mods I avoid using mod parts as much as possible because I want my craft to be [stock] compatible, even the other mods I have like MechJeb, Protractor, and Engineer Redux I just use ModuleManager to give all pods and probes built in functionality.

I did try some of those big part packs before, my jaw dropped to the floor in amazement of how many parts were in my parts list, and within an hour the mod was gone because I felt like my parts list was way too cluttered. So in short... No I probably wouldn't delete any stock parts to make room for mod parts.

[regex]

Nope. Most of the parts packs I've checked out are way OP compared to stock. I'd much rather prune parts packs than stock parts.

[alacrity]

I do unload a lot of the AERO parts from stock and all the mods... Alacrity don't build planes.

Other than that, with all the wierd parts I have crammed onto different ships, I would have t be too careful to unload other parts. I am sure if I went one part at a time I coud hussle together 30 parts I know I will NEVER use, but I just can't be bothered

Alacrity

[nhnifong]

I like to mix my engineering with both stock and mods. So, no. I do however delete mod parts to squeeze in more mod parts. My current goal is to have both KW rocketry and B9 aerospace without crashing. So far it's not working.

B9 has a lot of adapters in it. I don't assume you use them all, so maybe you could go without some. But they're light-weight anyways. It's the pod internals that are really killer.

[SkyHook]

I would delete stock parts. Period. The modding community of PC is like crack i tell you!

[SkyRender]

I've never had so many mods that deleting stock parts would be even remotely necessary. Not even back when I used to get every interesting new mod I saw. Nowadays I limit it to KER, Kethane, KAS, TAC, and Subassembly Manager, so I have even less reason to consider dropping stock parts.

[nhnifong]

Limiting one's use of mods is probably the wisest approach, but on Space Port I'm like a kid at a candy store!

[Motokid600]

Yea I deleted the stock boosters. And there will be more to come. I plan on optimizing my parts real soon. Question. If I delete a part while the game is active. Will that be a problem?

[Van Disaster]

Yep, I've rendered stock parts unloadable ( I rename anything the game will load rather than delete ) just like I have with mods. I don't use anyone else's craft files so it doesn't bother me.

[bigdad84]

I rarely use mods... and if I do, they go with the stock feel of the game...