Think that your computer is bad because of KSP performance?

[Rarity]

Don't. Instead, think of it this way: Your computer almost certainly runs the game better than even the next gen consoles would (in its current state). And no, KSP isn't coded poorly. So the next time you think about kicking your dusty old case or punting your laptop, think of those fancy new consoles frying on 50 part ships.

Opinions? Disagreements? Did this make anyone feel better about their system?

Edit: no, KSP is not currently (as far as I know) being ported to consoles. That's not what I'm trying to imply at all.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Rarity
clarification

[flightmaster]

Why wouldn't the next gen console be able to run it? I'd say they'd have a better chance of running it than a 4 year old laptop

[Rarity]

Why wouldn't the next gen console be able to run it? I'd say they'd have a better chance of running it than a 4 year old laptop

You would think, but the next gen consoles use octa core Jaguar AMD processors. Jaguar is basically a low end mobile processor. They're also (I believe this is rumor, so it may not be true) clocked below 2GHz. KSP wouldn't have a chance running on such weak cores. By design, software for next gen will pretty much have a hard requirement to be highly parallelized to run well. For the most part, this should be a really good thing because if devs actually do start making their games run (at least as well as current gen) well on such high core counts, when games are ported to PC they'll run much better all around due to being threaded more than they are now. Of course, that's only if it's a processor bottleneck to begin with.

Then again, these are just my thoughts on it and I could be wrong. But it sure seems to be the case.

[flightmaster]

Huh, there you go then, learn something new every day!

[Sandworm]

Raw power is not the issue. KSP has serious ram and cpu restraints that mean that it can actually run faster on a "slower" system. It's down to the per-core speed. You can have 12 cores running on a 5000$ CPU, but as KSP relies so heavily on only one core it would probably run better on a 4-core 100$ cpu ... so long as each of those four cores are faster individually. Then there is the ram issue (unity being only 32bit on windows).

Whether a ps3/4 or xbox would run KSP better than a given PC is a total lottery. But given the parallel processing abilities of the modern counsels, abilities that KSP cannot properly leverage, I would side with the PC.

There is also the whole linux/windows debate. The new steamOS boxes, essentially ubuntu-powerred PCs, will run KSP very well.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Sandworm

[Rarity]

Raw power is not the issue. KSP has serious ram and cpu restraints that mean that it can actually run faster on a "slower" system. It's down to the per-core speed. You can have 12 cores running on a 5000$ CPU, but as KSP relies so heavily on only one core it would probably run better on a 4-core 100$ cpu ... so long as each of those four cores are faster individually. Then there is the ram issue (unity being only 32bit on windows).

Whether a ps3/4 or xbox would run KSP better than a given PC is a total lottery. But given the parallel processing abilities of the modern counsels, abilities that KSP cannot properly leverage, I would side with the PC.

There is also the whole linux/windows debate. The new steamOS boxes, essentially ubuntu-powerred PCs, will run KSP very well.

This is what I'm trying to say, pretty much. About steamboxes, of course it'll run well on those because so far all the steamboxes I've seen are going to be i5s and i7s. They've come out saying there'll be AMD units too, but we don't know about those yet.

[Elkarlo77]

The Next Gen Consoles are quite powerfull but they mark a total different approach to computing.

Thanks to the old Gen Consoles Single Thread performance was important, the next Gens are going for Multicore.

They are basically the A8-5600k and the A10-5800k Prozessor. Which are good Mitclass Prozessors, only that the cores are split

up into cmd sections and run on half speed to lower Power consumption. I builded Several PC with this core and they are quite Powerfull.

And allow good Performance on everything but Cryengine 3, there you have to go on Low-Med Settings.

The Problem with KSP in the current state is very simple: Unity-Engine is relativly new to Multithread support and KSP is not realy running Multithread.

My workstation A8 3850 (less raw Power as an Xbox-one)is capable of running a 300 Parts ship without lag.

A newer A8 5600k is able of running 400-500 parts. (Nice to have costumer PC to stresstest)

It realy depends on the max Frq the Prozessor can chunk out. As Multicoring is not yet supported.

So the Next Gen Consoles would suck because they have the same computing power as a A8-A10 with 4x3,8-4ghz but it is split up into 8x1,6-1,8ghz.

On the other Hand it is good for PC as Quad Cores are common and now the Programmes must think multithreading.

[Stealth2668]

Ya someone with a 3 year old mid range pc (at the time, low end these days) KSP runs like pure garbage. Hopefully they will optimize the game soon.

[SteevyT]

It realy depends on the max Frq the Prozessor can chunk out. As Multicoring is not yet supported.

So the Next Gen Consoles would suck because they have the same computing power as a A8-A10 with 4x3,8-4ghz but it is split up into 8x1,6-1,8ghz.

A better way to put it would be instructions per core per second. Or instructions per cycle times frequency, should be the same thing.

[Javster]

And yet they release GTA V on consoles first...

[Nostromo]

Good points Rarity. I think the PS4 will change the way games are built from the ground up; heck, there's plenty of games still not 64bit even outside of Unity.

[Levelord]

To go on record...

Rarity is best pony.

[Psycix]

And no, KSP isn't coded poorly. So the next time you think about kicking your dusty old case or punting your laptop, think of those fancy new consoles frying on 50 part ships.

Opinions? Disagreements? Did this make anyone feel better about their system?

I do agree that consoles are ****e in terms of processing power. It is the tuning of the games to the standard capabilities of the hardware that makes games run well on them.

I've always been a big fan of powerful cores rather than a lot of them. Gamers do not need more than 4 cores.

My i5-2500K is clocked on 4.2 GHz and makes KSP run "good" to "horrible" depending which way you look at it:

Good because: Compared to most KSP players my KSP runs incredible as I'm on the high end of the spectrum here.

Horrible because: Comparing to other games, KSP lags like hell and accepting massive lag is part of the gameplay.

I do not agree with your statement on KSP's quality of coding. Although it is not the fault of KSP developers, the unity engine's physics are simply "previous gen".

A modern physics engine (which a game like this requires more than any other) is multithreaded or GPU accelerated, capable of running much heavier simulations on the same hardware.

Interestingly enough, I tend to play more "niche" games which also lag because of singlethreadedness.

Dwarf Fortress, which is commonly throttled by heavy singlethreaded CPU loads. And Garry's mod, sometimes relies heavily on physics while the source engine's physics are singlethreaded and can have a hard time keeping up.

[issarlk]

And yet they release GTA V on consoles first...

It's purelly to make money. And we can't blame them for that. They'll probably release old gen consoles, then next gens, and later PC. Plenty of people who bought it on old gens will buy it again for their PS4BOne or their PC.

[Linear]

Yet another person who doesn't understand a dot about hardware

[Kerbart]

I remember vaguely that hackers were buying xboxes because it gave them high performance hardware for a fraction of the market price. I guess that was the xbox 2 as it was in a time where MS needed to aggressively gain market share.

Then there's the simplified architecture. Software can run without having to worry about running three different browser and excel and powerpoint and adobe photoshop in the background. Not to mention the printer queue, the backup software, malware for five botnets battling each other over bandwidth, etc. When you can ditch most of that overhead. I remember that there was some kind of tool for MS Flightsim that would shut down all but essential windows services and get you a few (much needed) fps more.

Finally there's the software itself. From what I gather, much of the limitationsâ€â€size and performance wiseâ€â€are related to Unity. That is not meant as a stab to Unity; given the background of KSP there were likely not that many options and Unity has gotten the game where it is right now, which is pretty far and pretty awesome. BUT... I doubt GTA V or Medal of Honor use unity; games that rely on speed usually rely on highly tuned high performance engines.

All in all, if KSP were rewritten for a console I doubt it would be a slouch.

[Sma]

As far as I understand it, most of the "highend" hardware in consoles is related to the GPU/video processing. As others have said, being as that KSP is CPU intensive (because of how unity works) that high end graphics hardware does little good. Maybe at some point when unity gets an update to use multicore/64bit and/or gpu processing and KSP can be ported over to it things will change.

[frizzank]

The benefit of consoles is not there raw power, but there consistent hardware.

For computer customers, software has to work across all available combinations of chips, ram, and video cards.

With consoles you can custom fit your software to work extremely well on that one system. Taking advantage of every bit of power it has to offer. Where as you cant do that with a pc, because of drastically different specs per customer. Well you could but it would only work on a few systems.

This is why a game made for the 360 and ported to PC works and looks better on the 360.

[_Aramchek_]

This is why a game made for the 360 and ported to PC works and looks better on the 360.

How did this thread even get on the the subject of consoles?

Anyway, that isn't even remotely close to being true in any conceivable way.

Many people already have pc's that put the "next gen consoles" to shame too, as we've seen too, several of the main players in pc gaming seem to want to do things to/about that "extra overhead" the pc supposedly suffers from. (I am just not sure about the ways in which they want to do it.)

[cesarcurado]

Don't. Instead, think of it this way: Your computer almost certainly runs the game better than even the next gen consoles would (in its current state).

I wish that was true

[Starwhip]

Yeah, something I've noticed is that my computer has decided that it should run the game better when it is on a higher graphics setting! WTF! Illogical!

[magnemoe]

And yet they release GTA V on consoles first...

It's purelly to make money. And we can't blame them for that. They'll probably release old gen consoles, then next gens, and later PC. Plenty of people who bought it on old gens will buy it again for their PS4BOne or their PC.

Rockstar who make GTA apparently have an low option about pc games.

And it might be about money, they plan to release the game on pc and next gen later as in spring next year.

GTA5 pushes the current gen consoles a bit to hard so many fans will buy another version.

[Captain_Party]

Funny thing is, I have a 5 year old Mac and I can run 150 part ships at 20fps

[Bilfr3d]

I've got a fairly average laptop, 4gb RAM, 32-bit, 2.1 Ghz dual core Pentium processor - limits the frames at 180fps with 200 part space station.......... hmm?

[hildegain]

And yet they release GTA V on consoles first...

This is proof of nothing. Releasing a game on a console is as simple as this.

Code game, optimize it to run on old hardware, release.

Releasing on PC is more like this:

Code game, optimize to run well on lower end systems, optimize to make use of mid-system features and optimize to make use of advanced features, increase game quality above the original console maximum, test on a range of different drivers to ensure that it works consistently, test on multiple operating systems and with overclocking profiles.

Yes GTA V came out on consoles first, but it looks like utter crap. There is no AA to speak of, AF is almost non-existent, LOD is horrible and it's a buggy mess. The PC version is going to be an improved (albeit still buggy) game.

Just because something comes first does not mean it is the better and for what you're possibly trying to say "definitive" version of the game.

Funny thing is, I have a 5 year old Mac and I can run 150 part ships at 20fps

Macs are never that good in the hardware department, especially not when Apple insist on using onboard laptop GPUs in them. Edit: Not trying to insult your system, just saying that a lot of mac users complain about performance issues with laptop gpus.

Edited October 15, 2013 by hildegain