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

[Zeblote]

I personally like the look of the stock parts

this so much

For example the fustek pack has those giant solar panels, really useful, but the texture on them... well...

yes it is RAM.

KSP is 32bit software, so it isn't able to adress more than 4gb even if your computer has more. its a limitation of the used Unity engine.

Nope.

Unity can build 64 bit programs too.

[annallia]

this so much

For example the fustek pack has those giant solar panels, really useful, but the texture on them... well...

Nope.

Unity can build 64 bit programs too.

I agree, but if there is a part that you never use, why not remove it? I never use the stock antennae so I removed them, two fewer things for the game to load.

As to the engine I believe the 64 bit capability of Unity is rather new isn't it? Even if it isn't KSP is built for 32bit not 64. As such your ram is still limited to 4gb even if you have more.

[Zeblote]

As to the engine I believe the 64 bit capability of Unity is rather new isn't it? Even if it isn't KSP is built for 32bit not 64. As such your ram is still limited to 4gb even if you have more.

The 64 bit capability of unity is way older than KSP and even then they could "just" build it for 64 bit, though it probably involves some more work, I don't know about that

[Deadweasel]

This is because the extra ~0.4GB is being used for video memory and not RAM.

The 4GB limit includes any video memory (usually on your GPU) that is in use.

This only applies if you're running an integrated video card that shares system memory.

That said, there is still a system overhead that applies to RAM in computers with independent video cards, and it generally works out to about 300-400MB, so 32 bit programs will crash if they attempt to use more than 3.6-3.7GB of RAM.

[asmi]

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

Since you can't have the problem in question, your answer is irrelevant. How about NOT voting?

[_Aramchek_]

Since you can't have the problem in question, your answer is irrelevant. How about NOT voting?

No, I actually think this question without the other options is kind of boring, it's lacking interesting information. I think this was a slightly rude post for a mod to make too.

[rasheed]

Ima considering removing the stocks tanks due to the new fuel tanks mod P-Tanks.

[Sapphire]

Like Zeroignite it never occurred to me to delete stock parts. That said I can think of quite a few that I could do away with. Certain wing designs that I haven't used since I first got the game and was throwing parts together just to see what they looked like...

That said, as I think about it and try to think of what parts I would do away with. I find myself thinking why not just delete the parts that are duplicated by the mods rather than the stock ones? Solar panels? Yeah AEIS has some pretty ones but they don't rotate like the stock ones do so I would rather have stock. Science type stuff? The antennae perhaps, AIES has some niiice dishes. But as far as things like the thermometer and g force reader. Stock ones look better.

I personally prune from both. While I have the solar panels and an RCS tank from KOSMOS and nothing else, three propellers from Firespitter and nothing else, KWRocketry minus most of the engines and no fairings, etc., I also deleted the stock antenna and comms. dish, because the AIES ones look better in my opinion. Stock wings go because I have B9 and Procedural Wings, and the science sensors because I have a stackable all-in-one sensor module I use instead.

[czokletmuss]

I prefer more s-fish spacecraft, so I delete almost all vanilla parts and use mainly various mods. However, when I want to play stock only I just unpack KSP zip and play it. But yeah, with the memory limit mixing stock and mods is painful.

[annallia]

The 64 bit capability of unity is way older than KSP and even then they could "just" build it for 64 bit, though it probably involves some more work, I don't know about that

Define way older... I am unfamiliar with Unitys version history but I can see requests for it to have 64 bit support dating back to 2011, KSP was released in 2011...

If there was a 64 bit unity engine in 09 or earlier I will buy the "way before" bit, otherwise I leave room for the game to have been in development before the alpha release and there was no way before.

[djnattyd]

I haven't deleted them but I have started sticking stuff I don't use into RAR folders if that counts?

[Aqua667]

I'll probably delete them if I have that many mods, but only the redundant ones, like fuel tanks and random structural parts. Definitely not things like probe cores and docking ports. I probably just grab a clean install for making stock ships. But my comp doesn't even have 4 gigs of RAM , so that'll never happen.

[Mr. Rogue Ace]

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

I think "No Way!" could mean that you wouldn't defile stock with mods

[leax256]

I don't get it. Are you saying that once another balancing statistic comes along I'm going to suddenly have a change of opinion about overpowered parts and start using them because they do the same or better job cheaper than stock parts?

they are "overpowered" because they are free. once they cost money and if ballenced you'll see that they do a better job but they cost more.

[Guest]

they are "overpowered" because they are free. once they cost money and if ballenced you'll see that they do a better job but they cost more.

I still don't see why I'm going to have a change of opinion. Mod makers can simply edit the cost as they see fit. Hell, so can I. I take a mod's engines and balance them to my tastes, and have done so, and can adjust the cost and where they will fit into the tech tree when that option becomes available. I can do the same with stock. Every part file is simple text; there is nothing preventing me from doing pretty much whatever I want with the stock parts or any mod I download because every OS comes with a free text editor.

[Wait- Was That Important?]

I've already deleted the stock parts for the last three versions of KSP

It's just too laggy for me to use with my old computer to do anything large-scale.

[boxman]

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.

I honestly thought that was something that was originally planned for .21.. Recall devs speaking about something like that some months ago.

Either way it is something this game badly needs.

[little square dot]

In my modded installation I only have about ten stock parts left, simply because prior to the recent quasi-optimization of the stock parts, they were absurdly hard on the ol' computron. 8mb for a simple adapter?! 40mb for an internal!??! I think one of the rover wheels was over 20mb as well.

My unmodded installation... well, self-explanatory really.

[boxman]

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.

They should be able to use some kind of streaming for that. Loading a few parts now and then is nothing like loading them all into memory at one go.

[boxman]

I don't understand people who go "I don't use mods omg I'm so clever". It makes no sense. At all.

Mods give the game great replayablility, because of endless new possibilities with new mods. Tons of mods are the real fun of this game!

But they also add alot of issues. Things nearly always break with next version which is much more rare with stock parts. Not fun when all your craft files are unloadable and your persistance/space stations wiped just because one mod would no longer load.

I like mods but this problem makes me try to use stock parts as much as possible.

[THX-1138]

With the current memory limitation of this great game I have no other choice but to remove mods and stock parts to make room. This is an issue that has to be dealt by SQUAD since they were the same people whom opened the gates to the mod community at the early stages of KSP development. They opened the gates for a reason which appears to be working in their favor (expanding current game from default, gathering data on what the players enjoy doing with KSP, picking up great mod makers to work on the main game, etc.). They can not just put a blind eye to the situation, mods make for a very enjoyable experience within KSP for many gamers and the current memory allocation limitation is hampering on that enjoyment. I do understand the fun on stock parts but I also enjoy many existing mods to provide me with hundreds upon hundreds of hours of fun gaming.

[boxman]

[64-bit]

What 4GB limit?

[/64-bit]

You can break the 4GB limit if you run 64-bit Linux. I realise setting up a dual-boot just to improve performance in one game may seem a bit extreme for some folks, but if you're a heavy KSP player it might make sense. Linux doesn't cost anything, and you can install one of the user-friendly distros in about half an hour, so you've got nothing to lose really.

How stable is it? I thought the 64bit version still had some big issues. And how does the framerate and performance compare to windows? I have a ubuntu install but it is sadly just 32bit, so havent tested it out on linux yet.

[HeadHunter67]

Things nearly always break with next version which is much more rare with stock parts. Not fun when all your craft files are unloadable and your persistance/space stations wiped just because one mod would no longer load.

I like mods but this problem makes me try to use stock parts as much as possible.

That's the real issue. It's not like other games, where a missing mod just means those parts don't load (e.g., Minecraft). No - if you have a ship that's got as much as one mod part that's no longer present (or even something docked to it that fits that description), the ship won't only not load - it will be permanently removed from your persistence file.

If you rely entirely upon mods, you run the risk that one mod that's not updated or no longer works will lock you out of your save or lose you a ship. I love mods, they make my game more enjoyable... but that's the real risk.

[Seret]

there is a 64bit linux KSP ???

well.. but i don't think mods with windows dll's would work?

Not all mods work, but many (such as Mechjeb) do. Linux KSP bundles Mono, which is able to handle Windows .dlls.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Seret

[Seret]

How stable is it? I thought the 64bit version still had some big issues. And how does the framerate and performance compare to windows? I have a ubuntu install but it is sadly just 32bit, so havent tested it out on linux yet.

Stability on 0.21 seems fine. I did have a crash on 0.20. I noticed a bug last night where there are some strange artifacts in the background when docking, but they don't affect anything. Hard to say whether this is due to Linux, 64-bit Unity, or just general alpha-ness, but there are certainly no blockers to playing the game. Which is great for alpha software really.

Frame rate seems fine, I play at 1280x1024 and full detail, scatter, etc (Nvidia GTX650 on an old Core 2 Duo). No lag seen, but I don't tend to launch any really stupidly complicated ships so I'm possibly not the best person to judge. Running 64-bit can't hurt to avoid lag, crunching big juicy numbers is exactly the kind of stuff 64-bit excels at.