Argelle Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Thanks for this mod, it makes wonder to reduce memory usage at each versions I went from 2.6 Giga used with 1.1 version to 2.5 Gig (2.7 basic) and 2.4 only with aggressive version. It cost a bit of loading time (1'55 for the first two but 3'40 for the aggressive) but it's worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LameLefty Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 So 2.7 Aggressive seems to be borken for me ... it hangs on loading every single time at Squad/Parts/Aero/CanardController/model001The usual KSP background loading comments continue to flash up periodically, so KSP itself isn't hung. Interestingly, the Basic version doesn't have this result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somnambulist Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 True... I'll put something together. What would be preferred:A) Config files in the respecting mod's folders. Config files in this mod's folder.CFG in AMR's folder. Lets you keep known good settings without worrying about breakage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbray89 Posted January 3, 2014 Author Share Posted January 3, 2014 So 2.7 Aggressive seems to be borken for me ... it hangs on loading every single time at Squad/Parts/Aero/CanardController/model001The usual KSP background loading comments continue to flash up periodically, so KSP itself isn't hung. Interestingly, the Basic version doesn't have this result.Hmm... Do you have a texture reduction pack installed for squad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LameLefty Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Hmm... Do you have a texture reduction pack installed for squad?Nope. The only texture reduction packs I've ever used were the ones for KW Rocketry. And on a Mac, without the ability to merge folders the same way you can in Windows, I had to manually copy over each new texture into the proper folder to install. It was way too much of PITA. So since 0.23 and the last couple versions of KW, I haven't used any texture reduction packs at all. 2-7 Basic works fine though not as well as 2-6 seemed to. 2-4 also works well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbray89 Posted January 3, 2014 Author Share Posted January 3, 2014 Nope. The only texture reduction packs I've ever used were the ones for KW Rocketry. And on a Mac, without the ability to merge folders the same way you can in Windows, I had to manually copy over each new texture into the proper folder to install. It was way too much of PITA. So since 0.23 and the last couple versions of KW, I haven't used any texture reduction packs at all. 2-7 Basic works fine though not as well as 2-6 seemed to. 2-4 also works well.Hmmm... maybe it is a mac-centric issue then. Can you post your KSP.log after trying to run with 2-7 aggressive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LameLefty Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Hmmm... maybe it is a mac-centric issue then. Can you post your KSP.log after trying to run with 2-7 aggressive?I'll be sure to do that tonight for you. I'll tell you that I looked at it last night the first time I tried 2-7 Aggressive and again earlier today when I tried again. In each instance, the last dozen or more lines all referenced the Squad /Flags folder without reference to the part that seemed "stuck" (the canard model). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somnambulist Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 And on a Mac, without the ability to merge folders the same way you can in Windows, I had to manually copy over each new texture into the proper folder to install. It was way too much of PITA. Option-drag the folder. You'll get an option to merge the folders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LameLefty Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Option-drag the folder. You'll get an option to merge the folders.Really? Wow. I've used OS X for ten years as of next month and I've never realized that. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somnambulist Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Really? Wow. I've used OS X for ten years as of next month and I've never realized that. Thanks!I think that was added in Snow Leopard do don't feel too bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shad0wCatcher Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 ........It took them ten iterations to give users an option to merge folders? Good christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LameLefty Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Okay so that was all very weird. I totally eliminated the BoulderCo folder (I also use your Visual Enhancements mod) then reinstalled both mods from scratch and now everything is working. I'll fool around with things more tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbray89 Posted January 3, 2014 Author Share Posted January 3, 2014 Okay so that was all very weird. I totally eliminated the BoulderCo folder (I also use your Visual Enhancements mod) then reinstalled both mods from scratch and now everything is working. I'll fool around with things more tonight.Hmmm... Ok, well that is the kind of issue I like. Reboot and it's gone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LameLefty Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Hmmm... Ok, well that is the kind of issue I like. Reboot and it's gone I hate it, myself, that I posted an issue was likely due to something corrupted or glitched, especially after repeatedly removing and re-installing different versions of your mod to try to narrow it down. Oh well. On the upside, memory usage on my system went from around 1.4 - 1.6GB with version 2-7 Basic to now under 1.2 GB. So kudos! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbray89 Posted January 3, 2014 Author Share Posted January 3, 2014 I hate it, myself, that I posted an issue was likely due to something corrupted or glitched, especially after repeatedly removing and re-installing different versions of your mod to try to narrow it down. Oh well. On the upside, memory usage on my system went from around 1.4 - 1.6GB with version 2-7 Basic to now under 1.2 GB. So kudos!Glad to see it helping! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LameLefty Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Glad to see it helping!Even more interesting (and this may have something to do with OS X 10.9's native active memory compression) ... after posting I paused my game, put my Mac to sleep and left the office. I came home and woke up my computer, resumed KSP and now memory usage has dropped to ~861 megabytes. Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor831 Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Just wanted to give a report here. Finally got around to installing .23 on my Mac, and decided to do a mod cull since I was hitting the RAM limit. Saw this mod and decided to do some experiments. Stock game used 1467MB of RAM with full textures and loaded in around 2 minutes. I added this mod (the 2.7 aggressive) and saved just under 300MB (1195MB total).Decided to push this thing to see what I could load. I loaded up B9, KW Rocketry, NovaPunch, and KOSMOS with their dependancies (Proc. Fairings, Firespitter dll, and the B9 extra dlls) without any texture reduction packs. My final RAM usage at main menu was 1496MB. So, in practical terms, I used probably the 4 most memory intensive mods I have (in my opinion) and came in at essentially the same RAM usage. According to the log I saved 1334MB, which would already put me in the unstable range. Not sure that would even load for me! Only downside is the load time, which was up to 7 minutes! I did notice some texture errors with NP that I didn't take the time to hunt down and fix, and I didn't test gameplay to make sure nothing odd happened. But, this mod is a great win. Kinda wish the textures could look pretty and be small, but I'll take compressed and playable! Finally I can have my Mod Madness without RAM crashes.In short: Bravo, rbray89! Awesome job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbray89 Posted January 3, 2014 Author Share Posted January 3, 2014 Just wanted to give a report here. Finally got around to installing .23 on my Mac, and decided to do a mod cull since I was hitting the RAM limit. Saw this mod and decided to do some experiments. Stock game used 1467MB of RAM with full textures and loaded in around 2 minutes. I added this mod (the 2.7 aggressive) and saved just under 300MB (1195MB total).Decided to push this thing to see what I could load. I loaded up B9, KW Rocketry, NovaPunch, and KOSMOS with their dependancies (Proc. Fairings, Firespitter dll, and the B9 extra dlls) without any texture reduction packs. My final RAM usage at main menu was 1496MB. So, in practical terms, I used probably the 4 most memory intensive mods I have (in my opinion) and came in at essentially the same RAM usage. According to the log I saved 1334MB, which would already put me in the unstable range. Not sure that would even load for me! Only downside is the load time, which was up to 7 minutes! I did notice some texture errors with NP that I didn't take the time to hunt down and fix, and I didn't test gameplay to make sure nothing odd happened. But, this mod is a great win. Kinda wish the textures could look pretty and be small, but I'll take compressed and playable! Finally I can have my Mod Madness without RAM crashes.In short: Bravo, rbray89! Awesome job!I'm just glad I finally got it right. There is a reason there are 7 versions of 2.x Sounds like I still have a tiny bit of work left for modders to easily add texture reduction/management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eadrom Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Let me just say that I love this mod. I have an older computer and this mod just helps soooo much. I've been using v1.1 with great success. I have a question about the implementation of the next version of this mod. In v1.1, you pretty much just drop in your folder w/ .dll and enjoy less RAM usage. I've been keeping up to date on this thread and it looks like in v2+, there will need to have configs edited for non-default mod textures to be compressed. I understand that there's some new functionality being built in with the new config file options. My question is, will the final stable version of v2 allow for the same "it just works" usage that v1.1 currently has in addition to more advanced options via config, or will every person need to edit their config file to include the mods they are using? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbray89 Posted January 3, 2014 Author Share Posted January 3, 2014 Let me just say that I love this mod. I have an older computer and this mod just helps soooo much. I've been using v1.1 with great success. I have a question about the implementation of the next version of this mod. In v1.1, you pretty much just drop in your folder w/ .dll and enjoy less RAM usage. I've been keeping up to date on this thread and it looks like in v2+, there will need to have configs edited for non-default mod textures to be compressed. I understand that there's some new functionality being built in with the new config file options. My question is, will the final stable version of v2 allow for the same "it just works" usage that v1.1 currently has in addition to more advanced options via config, or will every person need to edit their config file to include the mods they are using?By default, V2.7+ will at LEAST compress textures, giving the same benefits as 1.1. However, it also has the ability to manage other textures more thoroughly to resize, compress, etc. By default only Squad, B9, KW, and my mods are added to this list. So yes, it is plug and play if you only want basic texture reduction, but if you want more control, you have to spend some time changing the config. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virtualgenius Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 V2.7 aggressive doesnt work either, just does the CTD memory usage goes through the roof about halfway through loading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somnambulist Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 ........It took them ten iterations to give users an option to merge folders? Good christ.Not 10 iterations and all sorts of Unix-y ways to do it have been available since OS X DP1. Now let's stay on topic shall we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbray89 Posted January 4, 2014 Author Share Posted January 4, 2014 V2.7 aggressive doesnt work either, just does the CTD memory usage goes through the roof about halfway through loadingIs that an un-modified aggressive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virtualgenius Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Thats straight out of the zip file copied into gamedata would it help if i did it in stages like a third of the mods and progressively added more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbray89 Posted January 4, 2014 Author Share Posted January 4, 2014 Thats straight out of the zip file copied into gamedata would it help if i did it in stages like a third of the mods and progressively added moreI'm not sure if I can figure this one out. You already tried removing and adding it back, and 2.7 aggressive should shave more memory than 1.1 without any alterations. That being said, one possibility is that one of your other mods is trying to read the new texture modifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts