Jump to content

RAM usage my mods experiment results


DartBoris

Recommended Posts

Hello

I had some questions about mods ram usage , so I decided to make some basic tests. Got a clean fresh ksp 0.22 install from steam , and then started adding mods. And looking into ram usage.

All those tests were made only for my own purpose , but maybe someone will find them usefull. Actual ram usage may (read:will) differ from listed , but I hope this gives overall info for someone who may need.

Also , I'm lazy and didnt convert KB to MB properly. 1,500 mb should read as 1 500 000 KB from task manager. Very lazy.

All tests were ran on clear VAB , in sandbox new game. Mods are mostly latest versions.

Graphic settings screenshot: *coming soon. It's all on max , fullres tex and 1920x1080. Vsync and 4x AA are forced from nvidia control panel. No hangar crew , phys deltatime 0.03*

System is

Win7 x64

I-5 2500K @ 3.5ghz x 4

8gb ddr3 @ 1333 mhz RAM

GeForce 650 ti-boost

Velociraptor HDD with KSP (cant remember specs , will update later)

Now , results!

1. Stock KSP. Fresh install from steam = 1,640 mb

2. Stock KSP , Squad Texture Reduction Pack = 1,410 mb *minus 230 mb , awesome!*

3. +KW Rocketry with KW texture reduction pack = 1,512 mb *~100mb for KW , expected.*

4. + Mechjeb2 = 1.526 mb *okay...*

5. + Enchanced Navball

+ TacFuelBalancer

+ Editor extensions

+ Presise Node Editor = 1,535 mb *grouped small usefull mods*

6. + FAR + KerbalJointReinforcement = 1,537 mb *I guess FAR will use some more ram during flight...*

7. + Planet Factory = 2,050 mb *Whoah , whoah , easy!*

8. + KSPX = 2,092 mb

9. + KAS = 2,141 mb *Okay...*

10. + Deadly Reentry Cont. = 2,144 mb

11. + NearFuturePropulsionPack (standart texture) = 2,461 mb *Ram hungry one, I guess I'll need its low res textures*

12. + Kethane

+resgen

+hexcans (guess theese small .dlls are needed) = 2.554 mb *I,m running out of mods and still not at 3.5G*

13. + ExtraplanetaryLaunchpads = 2,635 mb *Highter and highter , into the crash we flyyyy*

here I added rest of small DLLs from old folder *ram usage unchanged , expected.*

+ExsurgentEngineering.dll

+Firesplitter.dll

+KineTechAnimation.dll

14. + WarpPlugin (thats KSP Interstellar) = 3,029 mb *er...but this mod is so awesome....*

15. + Davon Supply Mod = 3,035 mb *good...*

16. + Procedural fairings = 3,053 mb *I guess I can remove KW fairings..*

17. + Orbital Construction Redux = 3.078 mb

And then I just added rest of smaller mods:

+EVA Chutes

+LaunchCountDown

+TAL Radial Container

+B9's air brakes and rss tanks only = 3,135 mb *phew..*

18. And then I added TreeLoader,started career = 3,136 mb

Well , looks like we have winners. Planet Factory was expected to eat a lot.

Having ~3.2G in empty vab is really bad , with rocket above medium size it will go ker-boom and hit 3.5G (going to half-res textues drops ram to ~2,800 in VAB)

But , I guess , too many mods anyway.

Farewell , ram-eaters , until we met again in the golden light of 64-bit ksp for windows.

Edited by DartBoris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great info! You're right about 3.5GB being too much when you've just loaded up. You'll crash pretty often with that.

Question-- how much difference do the texture reduction packs make?

Squad Texture Reduction Pack -230 mb

KW Reduction Pack -about the same, ~200 mb

B9 pack - dont know , never used full b9 part pack (I cant to spaceplane) , but afaik it helps about 250mb

With low-res texture pack for NearFuturePack it eats only about 50-70mb

With all texture reductions (also removed some unused parts) I managed to get the entire mod list (except for kethane @ interplanetary launchpads, dont need them in career) with 2.8G at fullres.

Edited by DartBoris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never found the need to use the IVA views...So I deleted the Squad /Spaces folder (these are the IVA files), and cut my Gamedata folder by another 280MB!!

Generally this is about the only IVA folder worth deleting, though...Most of the mod packs that have them, they are generally 25MB or less...

Also, when running lots of parts packs, I end up deleting about 60% of the Squad parts, due to duplicity or non-use. I generally trim out uneccessary parts from ALL the parts packs when I get over 2GB on my Gamedata folder.

I use KSP Mod Admin to help with that...The Parts tab was practically made for doing this, and it makes it super easy vs. doing it blindly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never found the need to use the IVA views...So I deleted the Squad /Spaces folder (these are the IVA files), and cut my Gamedata folder by another 280MB!!

Have you tested it with a crewed pod since you did that? I did the same, and the game glitched out something crazy when I tried to launch any vessel with a crewed stock pod on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never found the need to use the IVA views...So I deleted the Squad /Spaces folder (these are the IVA files), and cut my Gamedata folder by another 280MB!!

Generally this is about the only IVA folder worth deleting, though...Most of the mod packs that have them, they are generally 25MB or less...

Also, when running lots of parts packs, I end up deleting about 60% of the Squad parts, due to duplicity or non-use. I generally trim out uneccessary parts from ALL the parts packs when I get over 2GB on my Gamedata folder.

My Gamedata folder is 800 MB , still 2.8G just at startup =)

However , no crashes yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you tested it with a crewed pod since you did that? I did the same, and the game glitched out something crazy when I tried to launch any vessel with a crewed stock pod on it.

Yes, havent had any issues....I havent used ALL the stock pods though....I'll check them all before I delete the pods I dont use, and post back... (May be a few days though...)

I have also deleted the IVAs from some of the part packs that I use, and have also not had any issues with them.

Of course, I also havent tried to go into an IVA of a pod that I deleted the IVA for...SO if I dont do that, no issues...I'll try testing this as well...

Edited by Stone Blue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With low-res texture pack for NearFuturePack it eats only about 50-70mb

DartBoris, a question. Where can I find a NF low texture pack? Or, how can I make one?

edit: scratch that, it was in the folder already *derp*

Edited by Dante80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you need a reason to start using compressed textures, this thread is it.

most of those maps are going to be 3 channel, and dxt1 can take those down 1/6 for the same resolution

some will need alpha channels and so will need to use dxt5 (normal maps can use dxt5_nm), those will take the texture down 1/4 with same resolution

squad: compress your textures!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No NovaPunch? There's a reduction pack for that aswell. The problem here is even if you get the game to load with a 3gb gamedata folder it will crash constantly due to spikes as we all know. So what do you guys consider a stable folder size? My folder was pushing 2gb and it crashed. Reduced it down to 1.6gb and so far I haven't crashed in a few days.

All in all... My patience grows thin with the ram limit. It really is. What happens when Squad adds in more features and room for mods becomes less and less? Unity/Squad will be FORCED to optimize or push out the 64bit version. Sooner rather then later hopefully. The ram game is getting really old. And stock simply doesn't cut it for me after a month or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
No NovaPunch? There's a reduction pack for that aswell. The problem here is even if you get the game to load with a 3gb gamedata folder it will crash constantly due to spikes as we all know. So what do you guys consider a stable folder size? My folder was pushing 2gb and it crashed. Reduced it down to 1.6gb and so far I haven't crashed in a few days.

rbay's Texture Compressor adds to the startup time, but can shave 500mb or more off. I think this is all a case of more ≠ better. NovaPunch is, pardon me for saying, a very low quality mod pack. That one is truly quantity of quality. It's really the only one that I've stripped almost everything out of except for the engines. But let's say you do use Nova, KW, ARES, FASA, NearFuture, Interstellar and any other large pack together. The sheer amount of overlap makes it a pointless exercise unless you only gauge your rockets on aesthetics. You are going to default to whatever engines work the best, and that's generally 70% of your parts are going to simply go unused.

So if you have the RAM, my suggestion is don't bother trying to cram in every single one. Picking one or two major packs, I use KW and NearFuture, choose secondaries, I have Kethane, parts of Nova, KSPX, kommit, Shuttle Engines and Fairings. Then pick your gameplay mods and voila. It's more important you have parts you'll use than just parts. Depending on the projects you like, obviously your mileage will vary, but perhaps KSP won't be the only thing more optimized in the future. Some of these mod packs could use the same treatment.

I have 2.5 GB Ram.. With interstellar mod, kw rocketry and firespitter, and some small mods (about 10, they add only few parts.) How much RAM will i use?

If you have 2.5 available, you are already hitting your safety ceiling. I'd recommend adding texture compressor just to make sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...