rbray89 Posted October 20, 2014 Author Share Posted October 20, 2014 Looks like there are some in the ASM texturecache, but only some 10.6Mb worth of disc space used. KW Rocketry is only 3.26Mb and Squad 6.75 Mb for instance. When I uninstalled ATM, my contract screen is fine again and so is the toolbar. I'm guessing there is some kind of kind of conflict somewhere so I'll juts run without.Running with the current version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarbian Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Is it me or all the reports of high memory usage are with ATI cards ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitiya Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Is it me or all the reports of high memory usage are with ATI cards ?I have nvidia 770 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lincourtl Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Looks like there are some in the ASM texturecache, but only some 10.6Mb worth of disc space used. KW Rocketry is only 3.26Mb and Squad 6.75 Mb for instance. When I uninstalled ATM, my contract screen is fine again and so is the toolbar. I'm guessing there is some kind of kind of conflict somewhere so I'll juts run without.That's interesting. With 3-8 Aggressive, my textureCache/Squad folder has 34.2MB compared with the stock Gamedata/Squad folder at 763MB, and textureCache/NASAMission has 3.24MB and Gamedata/NASAMission at 65MB. So that's a total compression savings of about 791MB, which is roughly what I was seeing in total memory savings back in 0.24.I find it hard to believe that running stock + ATM 3-8 Aggressive is clocking in at 1.3-1.6 GB (it varies) memory usage for me. Unless the stock game now uses 2.5GB memory uncompressed? That seems improbable. The destructible buildings + admin building + whatever code to manage it shouldn't have added *that* much to the game.BTW: I have an ASUS/AMD EAH6450 video card with 2GB of memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbray89 Posted October 20, 2014 Author Share Posted October 20, 2014 Is it me or all the reports of high memory usage are with ATI cards ?Hmmm... I run Nvidia, though I also haven't tried the opengl option yet either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I use dual 6950s, I can run tests if you like.Note that *only* textures that get resized get put in the cache. If you're running basic, this will only be a few normal maps. Also, of course, if things are resized by 1/2, they will take up 1/4 of the disk space if they are kept in the same format, or more like 1/40th if the original texture was an MBM/TGA (cache is PNG, yeah?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Kerman Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I've not tried the OGL flag either, but if the extra data will help I will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbray89 Posted October 20, 2014 Author Share Posted October 20, 2014 I use dual 6950s, I can run tests if you like.Note that *only* textures that get resized get put in the cache. If you're running basic, this will only be a few normal maps. Also, of course, if things are resized by 1/2, they will take up 1/4 of the disk space if they are kept in the same format, or more like 1/40th if the original texture was an MBM/TGA (cache is PNG, yeah?)Correct to all, though I think that if I can implement a good saving mechanism, we'll move to DDS to save time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umlüx Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 i have an ATI card, but my run was in default DirectX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BudgetHedgehog Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Anyway, I digress - loading with ATM takes a LOT less time than without, so what do I need to change in what config to not rescale or downsize anything, but still take advantage of the drastically decreased loading time, if possible at all?Didn't want this to get lost and buried, is all..I hate to quote my own post for a second time, but I would really appreciate a reply (or even an acknowledgement of some kind) to my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlemur Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) Open @Default.cfg. Set scaling to 1. That should do it, I think.Sorry, was thinking Texture Replacer...In config.cfg, set scale=1 (around line 50). Edited October 20, 2014 by madlemur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbray89 Posted October 20, 2014 Author Share Posted October 20, 2014 I hate to quote my own post for a second time, but I would really appreciate a reply (or even an acknowledgement of some kind) to my question.Open @Default.cfg. Set scaling to 1. That should do it, I think.Yes, this should work. Sorry I didn't notice it earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virtualgenius Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) I am using opengl on a windows version of KSP using an Nvidia GTX 680 with your latest aggressive version and I dont seem to be having any issues. I have around 60 mods and memory is sitting at 2178mb in the VAB if you need my logs happy to supply Edited October 20, 2014 by Virtualgenius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Yeah, I think Sarbian found some decent dds-saving code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BudgetHedgehog Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Open @Default.cfg. Set scaling to 1. That should do it, I think.Sorry, was thinking Texture Replacer...In config.cfg, set scale=1 (around line 50).Yes, this should work. Sorry I didn't notice it earlier.Thank you both, I will try this in a bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nanowinner Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 How can I make this mod do its thing but leave Texture Replacer alone cause I've some custom suits and it makes them...well, crappy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarbian Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Yeah, I think Sarbian found some decent dds-saving code.I think I posted them once but the lib that give the best quality seems to be libsquish (C++, so some work to get C#). I had found some c# used by Paint.Net but it turns out they just pinvoque libsquish, and there an other wrapper arround. But those would require a more work to get linux and OSX working.So in the end it's a convertion of a c++ lib, unless rbay found something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakata Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Hey, sarbian and dbray. Been wanting to get mechjeb's (as well as some other ones) textures to not look like dirt, is there a way to do this? There are so many posts I can't find the info. Tried google but it sends me to pages that don't even have the search query's terms in em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbray89 Posted October 21, 2014 Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 How can I make this mod do its thing but leave Texture Replacer alone cause I've some custom suits and it makes them...well, crappy?Hey, sarbian and dbray. Been wanting to get mechjeb's (as well as some other ones) textures to not look like dirt, is there a way to do this? There are so many posts I can't find the info. Tried google but it sends me to pages that don't even have the search query's terms in em.Firstly, make sure you have set the texture resolution to full, as I think KSP defaults to Half. If it still looks awful then you can create a config (or modify an existing config) to not rescale the texture if you are using the non-basic config. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakata Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) Ahh that was my next question. Seems that setting the res in-game helps on memory as well, but made the situation with buttons and such much worse. Not sure why but seems that .25 has much worse memory load, so my game crashes after a few ships are loaded / some arbitrary time has passed. Seems that the in-game texture quality sames a lot of RAM but makes the game look like dirt.Getting quite irritating, and wish there was some way to save some more RAM. Wish x64 wasn't a pile of steamy poo At half-res in settings, I get: 1.567 pre MM, 1.891 after, 1.995 at loading screen, 2.063 in-game.Is there a way to get ATM to be more aggressive with normal texture size in game settings?Also, wonder why some icons are horrible but ones like KSPi icons look fine. Edited October 21, 2014 by Sakata Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LORDPrometheus Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I keep realizing how awesome this mod is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbray89 Posted October 21, 2014 Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 Ahh that was my next question. Seems that setting the res in-game helps on memory as well, but made the situation much worse. Not sure why but seems that .25 has much worse memory load, so my game crashes after a few ships are loaded. Getting quite irritating, and wish there was some way to save some more RAM. Wish x64 wasn't a pile of steamy poo look up how to load with OpenGL. People are reporting considerable memory savings, though with this mod, there is still some work to be done with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Um, there's *very good reason* .25 has a higher memory load than .24--it has a new building, new features, new GUI art, new destructable building art...let alone the SP+ parts. And note that only stuff in the GameData folder is scaled by ATM, so everything that .25 added apart from the new parts will not be touched by ATM.Setting textures to half res in the game settings does exactly what ATM aggressive does. If you're tempted to use it, just use scale = 4 instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakata Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) WOW. openGL rocks. Just hope the performance isn't crap! Mine is mostly CPU-bound so physics is probably worse for me than gfx.1.248<MM>1.619 (MM seems to take a chunk of memory)1.714 at loading screen, @KSC 1773, with normal textures.Not a HUGE saving, like some report, but still quite considerable considering I upped the textures.[edit] actually after a bit of playing, I think its FASTER than DX mode... for me at least. Probably less memory/disk operations. I'm still on ddr2/800 ram and an old core2duo Edited October 21, 2014 by Sakata Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Kerman Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Um, there's *very good reason* .25 has a higher memory load than .24--it has a new building, new features, new GUI art, new destructable building art...let alone the SP+ parts. And note that only stuff in the GameData folder is scaled by ATM, so everything that .25 added apart from the new parts will not be touched by ATM.Not sure who this was aimed at, but I'm only chasing after my memory issue since Sarbian reported such a lower memory usage with an empty GameData folder. I get that .25 will have a larger memory footprint overall but the large difference in usage at the base level is a bit strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts