Can someone tell me why I am wrong? (single threaded physx?)

[BubbaWilkins]

To add my data point (for what it's worth), I have an i5 at 3.7GHz with a beefy - but AMD - graphics card and the stock version of the game becomes unplayable, as in, less than 5 frames per second (which I consider to be too slow and unresponsive to be fun) after around 300-400 parts. I usually don't launch such big rockets, but station part count adds up pretty quickly, which is frustrating.

I won't make any in-depth comments as to the current state of KSP performance and how it affects players because on this forum it will evidently just be met with "buy a better computer", "it's still in development" or even "you don't know what you're talking about" and so on, but suffice it to say, I am not happy with it and am hoping that things will get better eventually. There's a lot of hardware potential which KSP and/or the underlying Unity engine is not making use of, and while it doesn't need to be the most optimized game of all time, let's say it's a bit on the slowish side at the moment, and it's getting on many people's nerves. There's nothing worse than being creatively hindered in a sandbox by a technical difficulty which clearly should not exist in the first place.

There isn't a machine out there that can run KSP unrestrained. If you know that 300 parts is your limit, then accept that as a technical challenge and design your crafts accordingly in the 50-100 range. Find mods with bigger parts and eliminated multiple small ones. Part bloat is no different than code bloat in that both lead to inefficiency and problems. You're not being creatively hindered, you're being technically lazy. Think small, build small. If you need and want bigger, than find modded parts packs that have bigger parts. Don't use 5 tanks when you can use 1. don't use 30+ wing sections when one procedural wing will do.

[Bacterius]

There isn't a machine out there that can run KSP unrestrained. If you know that 300 parts is your limit, then accept that as a technical challenge and design your crafts accordingly in the 50-100 range. Find mods with bigger parts and eliminated multiple small ones. Part bloat is no different than code bloat in that both lead to inefficiency and problems. You're not being creatively hindered, you're being technically lazy. Think small, build small. If you need and want bigger, than find modded parts packs that have bigger parts. Don't use 5 tanks when you can use 1. don't use 30+ wing sections when one procedural wing will do.

Thank you for proving my point. "You are being lazy, there is a limit, just accept it and move on". I am really tired of people constantly perceiving opinions as complaints. Of course everyone needs to work within their current limit, because they simply have to if they don't want to be playing a slideshow, thank you for stating the obvious. I was saying that the limit is uncomfortably low for what it could - and should - be. Also, nice strawman, converting the problem into a "technical challenge". Sometimes it's not about setting challenges or achieving a goal, you know - sometimes we just want to launch big things with lots of parts to have fun, maybe that is what we find enjoyable? Of course not, you've just turned the argument into "this game is about achieving more with the least amount of parts, and you're doing it wrong if you're wasting resources and using more parts than required". Well done. Your reply is completely missing the point of what I was trying to convey, and insulting at that.

In any case, let's not derail the thread. We all know how internet arguments usually end.

[BubbaWilkins]

Thank you for proving my point. "You are being lazy, there is a limit, just accept it and move on". I am really tired of people constantly perceiving opinions as complaints. Of course everyone needs to work within their current limit, because they simply have to if they don't want to be playing a slideshow, thank you for stating the obvious. I was saying that the limit is uncomfortably low for what it could - and should - be. Also, nice strawman, converting the problem into a "technical challenge". Sometimes it's not about setting challenges or achieving a goal, you know - sometimes we just want to launch big things with lots of parts to have fun, maybe that is what we find enjoyable? Of course not, you've just turned the argument into "this game is about achieving more with the least amount of parts, and you're doing it wrong if you're wasting resources and using more parts than required". Well done. Your reply is completely missing the point of what I was trying to convey, and insulting at that.

In any case, let's not derail the thread. We all know how internet arguments usually end.

I just challenged you to do better which will directly lead to a better playing experience. I'm not the one complaining that the performance is below my expectations to people (squad) who have no ability to do anything about it. The limitations are well known at this point as is the fact that Squad pretty much can't do anything about it.

[LameLefty]

I just challenged you to do better which will directly lead to a better playing experience. I'm not the one complaining that the performance is below my expectations to people (squad) who have no ability to do anything about it. The limitations are well known at this point as is the fact that Squad pretty much can't do anything about it.

No, be clear. It's Squad's game. They CAN do anything they want with it, including changing game engines. Whether they CAN AFFORD to do so, in terms of money, time and customer/player frustration during the likely 6-12 month rewrite cycle is another question. The fact is that they made the call early on based on what they could afford in terms of license fees and development time. We are all stuck, for better or worse, with the consequences of that call.

Now the bigger, more philosophical question is: would anyone really be happy if KSP's slowly growing reputation and player base makes Squad big enough to be bought out/taken over/call-it-whatever-you-want by a giant mega-studio that could afford to pay the financial cost of changing engines? Would anyone really be happy enough with the performance increase to see the game we know and love lose its soul?

Aye, there's the rub.

[polle]

I personally have my FPS cap at 60 and its only stable in the starting screen?

People want actually build huge space stations and big excavation plants...

I wont say KSP was good game but we had not the technology for, haha

Edited September 4, 2013 by polle