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

[Custard Donut (In Space)]

Wouldn't really work for me as with the exception of chatterer i don't use any mods, i wouldn't have much to play with if my stock parts went missing hehe.

[katateochi]

you know, even thou I heavily prune my mainy mods to reduce mem load, I'd not really considered deleting any stock parts. That seemed kinda wrong, like I was desecrating something sacred and would be forever shunned as a consequence. It's interesting to see that some of you do prune stock parts, I might consider it now, but there is something that I can't quite put my finger on which makes me hesitate from doing that.

I would like Squad to put more focus into optimizing the parts somewhat. B9 for all its 176 parts weighs in at 73MB whereas squad's 165 parts are 396mb (just looking at the size of their Parts folders and counting .cfg files in Parts), so B9 although I consider it a part heavy mod doesn't get trimmed. The optimisation that B9 did is just another reason why I count that mod among the greatest of mods and I wish other mods would follow his example. For example Kethane only add 15 parts but it's 102mb and many parts have similar textures so I'm sure it could be better optimised. I'm not sure how easy the stock parts are to optimise as a lot of the parts have unique textures, but I hope that where they can (ie fuel tanks with same textures) they will at some point.

[Van Disaster]

There's a few other considerations, like do the advancedCanards really need 2x4MB maps?

I've run a rather longwinded binary file comparison on image files in my Squad folder ( not just parts - but I've already removed a bunch of things ), and it looks like there's about 130MB of duplicates. I'm not going to make any claims about savings until I've actually tried multi-referencing textures... I tried on a different mod & some of the models wouldn't load, so there's issues there too. I've not checked if you can even do it for internal views or props yet either.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Van Disaster

[SRV Ron]

It appears that the problem of memory usage by the addition of parts is due to the inefficient way they are used. With every part being placed in its own folder with its own texture, it doesn't take long for resources to be used up with duplicate textures especially if those parts use a lot of large textures where you load everything that is available at once.

To fix that problem would require a complete rework of how parts are loaded into KSP as well as to allow the sharing of textures by more then one part to avoid duplicate in memory. That would requiring placing all parts in one folder, all textures in one folder, and using a distinctive names for each part with internal information in that part as to which texture it would use upon rendering. Not good solution as it would render all parts obsolete and force complete replacement of existing parts and their mods.

A more efficient alternative would be to compile a parts list with matching thumbnail pic for display in the VAB building and load each parts as they are selected for construction or when a saved rocket is loaded for use. That could probably be programmed without the need to totally rework all current parts and their mods.

Edited August 21, 2013 by SRV Ron

[HeadHunter67]

Hopefully, Squad is seeing how modders do things and learning from it, in order to further optimize the game. It can be done, and I believe it will be done - it's just a matter of time and we're still early on in the scheme of things.

[RealHogweed]

the only part that seriously needs to be deleted is the adanced canard. i never used it, i've never seen someone using it, plus it looks terrible (at least in my opinion, sorry C7).

[Tiron]

the only part that seriously needs to be deleted is the adanced canard. i never used it, i've never seen someone using it, plus it looks terrible (at least in my opinion, sorry C7).

...

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/ravenspear-mk3-d-manta-stock/

[daffy]

Thank you! The sudden crash syndrome has been hitting me a lot lately. I would play along fine, for a few days or hours and then boom. Game is gone, won't load. Crash to desktop...etc. I DO...use mods, and I never really understood the memory thing. I do now, at least a little better. Not sure if I would get rid of stock parts, but mostly because I don't know enough about what I'm doing yet, but I probably would be willing to clean stuff out to make room for a cool mod that I needed area for. Sure. I just try to watch my Game Data file size as I'm adding a mod or two. Seems to be about the 3.5 gb range for me too.

[Tiron]

Thank you! The sudden crash syndrome has been hitting me a lot lately. I would play along fine, for a few days or hours and then boom. Game is gone, won't load. Crash to desktop...etc. I DO...use mods, and I never really understood the memory thing. I do now, at least a little better. Not sure if I would get rid of stock parts, but mostly because I don't know enough about what I'm doing yet, but I probably would be willing to clean stuff out to make room for a cool mod that I needed area for. Sure. I just try to watch my Game Data file size as I'm adding a mod or two. Seems to be about the 3.5 gb range for me too.

It's not the size of your gamedata that matters, it's the amount of Memory used by the game. To see this in Windows you need to open the task manager (Ctrl+shift+esc), go to the processes tab, and look at the 'Mem Usage' or 'Working set' (or whatever windows 8 calls it) column for KSP.exe(*32 (if you're on a 64 bit windows)). This is limited to 4GB (4,194,304 KB) because the game is 32 bit. In practice you might run into problems before you quite hit that limit, but the closer you are the more likely stuff's gonna break.

A 64 bit version that doesn't have that restriction is planned if Unity can manage to fix things so that the 64 bit builds aren't universally horribly unstable.

[daffy]

It's not the size of your gamedata that matters, it's the amount of Memory used by the game. To see this in Windows you need to open the task manager (Ctrl+shift+esc), go to the processes tab, and look at the 'Mem Usage' or 'Working set' (or whatever windows 8 calls it) column for KSP.exe(*32 (if you're on a 64 bit windows)). This is limited to 4GB (4,194,304 KB) because the game is 32 bit. In practice you might run into problems before you quite hit that limit, but the closer you are the more likely stuff's gonna break.

A 64 bit version that doesn't have that restriction is planned if Unity can manage to fix things so that the 64 bit builds aren't universally horribly unstable.

Thank you for that. I learned something new! I'll keep an eye on that process number when I load the game up next time. I really do appreciate this thread, a lot, as it has begun to clear up some annoyance I had experienced recently with the game. I'm glad to see that it is something I may be able to monitor (until the 64 bit fix is built), and understand BEFORE the problem arrives. Thanks again.

[HeadHunter67]

It's not the size of your gamedata that matters, it's the amount of Memory used by the game.

Given that the amount of memory used by the rest of the game is more-or-less constant, controlling the size of your GameData folder (which loads into RAM when the game is launched) is really the only way you can control the likelihood of a crash - so yes, it's relevant.

[Deadweasel]

Given that the amount of memory used by the rest of the game is more-or-less constant, controlling the size of your GameData folder (which loads into RAM when the game is launched) is really the only way you can control the likelihood of a crash - so yes, it's relevant.

The rule of thumb I've been able to figure out is this:

If ksp.exe is running more than 3.3GB at the space center scene, you're running the potential for a crash-to-desktop scenario. While the game's memory usage is fairly stable, it does tend to spike when changing scenes or the vessel in focus. If you pull enough parts out to keep below the 3.3GB amount of used RAM, you should be able to run the game without issues for longer than you have free time to play.

[AlternNocturn]

I wasn't even aware it was possible to delete stock parts without breaking the game.

[NoMrBond]

I am having to get pretty brutal on mods, no room for cross-overs (only one set of fuel tanks, any replicated sizes all deleted), all 'in mod' fairings deleted and using Procedural Fairings, any similar engines pared down, etc etc.

[HeadHunter67]

The rule of thumb I've been able to figure out is this:

If ksp.exe is running more than 3.3GB at the space center scene, you're running the potential for a crash-to-desktop scenario. While the game's memory usage is fairly stable, it does tend to spike when changing scenes or the vessel in focus. If you pull enough parts out to keep below the 3.3GB amount of used RAM, you should be able to run the game without issues for longer than you have free time to play.

That's good advice. I've never thought to look in Task Manager while playing but I have discovered the GameData file size limit beyond which crashes begin for me. That's good to know.

[somnambulist]

I've run a rather longwinded binary file comparison on image files in my Squad folder ( not just parts - but I've already removed a bunch of things ), and it looks like there's about 130MB of duplicates.

The bulk of that is in 'spaces' (internals) and the texture names are baked into the mu file, so it's really not practical to fix the duplicates.

[Van Disaster]

288MB of dupes in a stock game. Whether it's possible to optimize internals depends if you can use MODEL{} blocks in internal cfgs.

It did occur to me that it might be possible to compare resources in game once it's loaded them all, and then merge URLs of matching resources ( and cache it, it wouldn't be quick to do ), but I don't know enough about the loader to know if that can sensibly be done.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Van Disaster

[NoMrBond]

I have been considering doing things along the those lines as well

Deleting all the docking ports except the Snr. (because I like the look), and reimplementing the other sizes via rescaleFactor.

Same with the TR-19A/TR-18A decouplers, or the TR-XLTR-18D/TR-2C group, just keep one and make the others a rescale of the kept one

I-beams, structural panels, nose-cones, stack batteries etc etc

Certainly a lot of optimisation could be done.

[spikeyhat09]

i can hardly stand having so many mods to the point that i have to page through in the VAB a lot.

[notsorightstuph]

How do I delete stock parts?

I use procedural fairings so tge stock one r never used. Also some stock probe cores could go at least one I never use. There are four small solar panels. I could delet two. Many parts I can think of. I'm gojng home and do this. Do I need to do anything like remove the mod manager cache as well to get rid of things there? I would like some details on how to do this please without causing a problem later on.

[TeddyDD]

I never deleted any stock part (except old shuttle cockpit before 0.90)

I use Procedural Parts/Fairings and when I installing things like KW Rocketry I just delete everything except engines, struts and rcs pods.

When I ran out of memory there is Active Texture Management to help

[Pecan]

How do I delete stock parts?

I use procedural fairings so tge stock one r never used. Also some stock probe cores could go at least one I never use. There are four small solar panels. I could delet two. Many parts I can think of. I'm gojng home and do this. Do I need to do anything like remove the mod manager cache as well to get rid of things there? I would like some details on how to do this please without causing a problem later on.

Ahhh, the smell of necromancy.

Stock doesn't HAVE any fairings so you're not going to save much there, but I suppose you could delete the nosecones.

All the stock stuff is in <Your KSP folder>\GameData\Squad ... \Parts and/or \SPP.

...\GameData\Squad\Parts\Aero\aerodynamicNoseCone, for instance.

I have no idea what happens if you delete the contents or even the whole folder. Make a backup and try :-)

[tater]

Mine seems to crash at ~3 GB, not 4 (and I have 12MB installed).

I'd dump spaceplane parts, I have yet to build one.

[klgraham1013]

In 0.24 and 0.25, I replaced most of the stock tanks and engines with KW Rocketry to save ram. Anything that was redundant got replaced.

[SubzeroSpartan7]

In my modded game that I am putting together I have deleted any and all fuel tanks unless I really like that look of the tank. I use Procedural Parts to save RAM. I believe I have saved almost 200 MB just deleting the fuel tanks and the B9 massive parts. I have also deleted wings for the same reason and only use Procedural Wings.