POLL - The MAX PART COUNT You Try To Keep ALL KSP Craft Designs BELOW (If Any) ?

[Dichotomy]

OK Full Disclosure I am a KSP newbie and am interested in the PART COUNTS, KSP players routinely try to keep their crafts under (IF ANY) ?

My interest in this grew out of another thread I made regrading what part counts were required for attaining most goals in KSP : (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55997-MAX-Parts-Required-to-Accomplish-Most-In-Game-Goals)

Now I am wondering just how many parts the broader KSP community attempts to keep their craft under, regardless of the reason (or circumstance) for the restriction.

Please bear in mind, the reason for restricting your part count is irrelevant as far as the POLL goes (although feel free to add it as a thread reply, especially if it is not performance related), it can be due to :

(a) performance considerations

( design considerations

© time constraints

(d) personal preference

(e) circumstance.

(f) numerological importance .... or anything else

What this POLL is designed to measure is the part counts (if any) you routinely attempt to keep your crafts below during design ? NOTE : We are talking about PART COUNTS on the Launchpad/Runway, NOT in orbit

For example, if you routinely keep your crafts under 300 parts, but occasionally build into the 400's then 300 would be the answer you are looking for. Alternatively if you don't really have any hard and fast constraints but on reflection most crafts come in under 250 parts, then 250 is your answer.

Feel free to add any caveats, or further information by replying to the thread. The REASON behind your constraint (if any) would be appreciated in this section.

Thanks everyone for reading, and hopefully voting/responding. Hope to get enough responses to ensure a meaningful data set as I am quite curious as to the result.

[magnemoe]

I would say part count in orbit is more useful, the launch don't last many minutes. I have no set limit but try not to get much over 500 in orbit, rather launch two missions as it kills frame rate and make the ship hard to control, eva and docking becomes even harder.

Crafts like landers and rovers with higher part count can be made lighter and i tend to do huge multi target missions.

[tobjv]

No limit for launcher, in orbit I keep my part count below 400.

[LtHeckard]

I have to keep my part limit below 300 parts simply because the game starts supremely lagging when i get to that limit

[Dichotomy]

I would say part count in orbit is more useful, the launch don't last many minutes. I have no set limit but try not to get much over 500 in orbit, rather launch two missions as it kills frame rate and make the ship hard to control, eva and docking becomes even harder.

Crafts like landers and rovers with higher part count can be made lighter and i tend to do huge multi target missions.

Apologies, please blame my newbness. I was naively assuming that in-orbit part count was much less restricted then it appears to be, also being new I am more focused on the launch side of things

So you are most likely right. Might create another POLL should this one get enough interest, same question but pertaining to ORBIT only.

@ALL Thanks for the replies/votes. Hope they keep coming.

[Kilmeister]

Since I built a new computer recently I haven't worried about part count. I've never tried to see how much I could do, but I haven't ever experienced any lag even when docking at my station or launching one of my more massive lifters. so I voted Whackjob

[ttnarg]

I agree the prize of my luncher fleet is a rairly used beast of a thing that badly slows down my computer, but it can, if asked, cleanly (no space debris) put 7 full red tanks into orbit with a 14 part out once in orbit (7 full tanks, 6 ksp radial decoupler and one docking port).

[Psycix]

What about the max caps count you try to keep your topic title under?

[Dave Kerbin]

I don't even know because I've never hit a part count that gave me any trouble on the launchpad. Then again I specifically don't do giant single launch pancake ships. I raise up big ships/stations in parts and assemble them in orbit.

[ttnarg]

I said 350 because I'm guessing thats about the maxxed I ever used but to be fair the limit was the build area not the part count and I would of used more if I had space as it was a test to see how much I could put into orbit on one go. But it did slow down my computer on take off.

On the other hand there is no size limit to what you can dock together.

[Torham234]

I am missing an option that says "as low as possible". Its a bit arbitrary to say I am trying to keep everything under 100, because I do not usually count the parts. What I do is carefully consider every stage and how to streamline every component and stage of the design. I am on the Minimalist side, so I guess I would go into the under 100 bracket most of the time...

[Anton P. Nym]

I said "under 300", but after a hardware refresh (and update to Windows 8) on my desktop now I only start hitting noticeable lag at 400 parts and it's only bad at the 500 mark. (The latter I'm only hitting in orbit; docking multiple spaceplanes to an interplanetary "mothership" racks up the part count pretty rapidly.)

That being said, I try to build with as few parts as are necessary to do the job... at least as I see it at the time.

-- Steve

[Ralathon]

I voted under 100. I can handle 600 parts with negligible lag and it only becomes really bad above 1000. But I always try to avoid over engineering my craft and a nice side effect is that I rarely need more than 100 parts at launch to do what I want. The only things that even come close to my limit are big space stations.

[lazarus1024]

Laptop under 200, desktop under 300.

The later is more a cumbersome issue than anything, my desktop can easily handle 400+ part ships with aplumb.

The laptop starts really chugging once I approach 200 parts. I've done 300 part ships, but I get around 15fps most of the time, which gets annoying. The biggest I ever did on the laptop was a Moho mission which was almost 400 parts with the satellites, unmanned rover and space station. I had to end up leaving the manned lander behind and sending it on a seperate mission when I tried to dock it with the mother ship and I was getting 2-3FPS in Kerbin orbit, making it impossible to dock (manned lander was around 80 parts...rather cumbersome). Even then at something like 350-380 parts I was chugging at around 15fps or less most of the time. Fortunately it shed parts quickly.

I could have probably reduced the part count by at least 10-15% now with some of the newer parts that would aid in construction, as on orbit assembly resulted in a lot of duplicate parts when the whole thing was assembled (as each jumbo orange tank has to have an RCS tank, 8 RCS jets, a probe core, a couple of batteries and 4 solar panels and then docked up 4 of them to the core, which is 60 extra parts, at a minimum).

[regex]

Under 300 for me at launch. Once in orbit my laptop doesn't like anything approaching 200 parts, so about 150 max in flight.

[Epthelyn]

For anything that stays in one place or gets additions (e.g. Space stations, landers, bases): Around 200-250 parts because the game runs smoothly

For lifters and pieces that I don't plan on keeping attached to anything for more than a transfer or two: 886 is my biggest yet and that mission took forever

[possum]

I really do not have part count limit. I build as big as I have to accomplish the mission. I think my biggest so far was 350ish.

[Bandock]

One of the largest in terms of parts count I ever built was the Brasturn-VI (might've built larger, but not exactly sure) in 0.13.3. That sucker used 302 parts total (including struts), but wasn't necessarily the most efficient rocket. I've learned from reading various threads on the forums to build more efficient rockets that used fewer parts. Space Stations will always have a higher part count total overall since they are meant to be expanded. However, one does not need to go overboard to head to the Mun. Heck, I was actually able to recently send a probe to Jool using a hybrid of LV-N and LV-909 (though I did refuel a bit once). That probe and lifter together took fewer than 100 parts to construct.

It is nice to build craft with more parts (in fact, still necessary for various craft that deliver payloads). Especially the Apollo-styled Mun lander type payloads that could easily amount to 200 parts. I know because I have experimented with such designs myself.

[DChurchill]

I said under 500, but it's not really a hard set limit, it's just that I very rarely build anything that big.

I think the biggest station I have is only 400 or so.

That stuff that Whackjob and his disciples do makes my head hurt.

[Whackjob]

I'm just gonna say, LOL!

[GusTurbo]

I consider 700-800 parts to be my maximum. My craft often have a lot of non-functional aesthetic parts, so those add a lot to the part count.

[Kerbocracy]

I try to keep mine under 1000. Around 1000 the launch is laggy and I can't time my asparagus releases well. I like to release them just at the point that they run out of fuel, so that they don't jerk the whole structure down when they stop, and also so that they don't leap forward when they release with a bit left. Around 1000, things start to get unmanageably laggy.

I've also been getting some VAB infinite hangs with part counts around 1000 (where I have to kill the program). This has prompted me to try to reduce my count overall (I'm currently rebuilding my heavy lifter to minimize parts).

[RocketPilot573]

Under 500... Because the MET timer turns yellow at like 350 parts.

[Giggleplex777]

I usually turn max delta time to 1.00 and at max graphics setting, so 350 is as far as I can get before it lags too much. My rig a handle ships with less than 300 parts just fine.

[Ekku Zakku]

Yeah, considering I once made a grand tour ship and a fleet of landers that combined were just under 2000 parts, I don't really have a limit XD

My i7 2600k OCed to 4.3 GHz can handle craft under 1000 parts pretty well lol. Despite that, I rarely get over 500 because I don't have much of a need for that many most of the time.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Ekku Zakku