"All-Around Optimizations, upgrading Unity" in .23, what does it mean?

[_Aramchek_]

iYes, people have claimed that, but for every person that has, two people have disagreed saying that 64 bit code would provide a minmal at best speed increase, the real win is the game not crashing when mods use too much memory. That is brought up all the time, sometimes by people that don't even realize that the problem is that they're running out of memory.

Stop trying to make it about mods, someone said they wished the game used more of their ram for performance reasons, I mentioned that's not really a thing.

You essentially seem to agree with me on that point, end of as far as I am concerned, the rest is all you.

None of which affects whether Squad should put more effort into hammering out bugs (I'm in the camp that thinks 64 bit Unity for win is the issue, it's not Squad that is holding it up), or even what optimizations are in 0.23.

If you can kindly point out where I said any such thing?

On the memory front, Scott Manley mentioned that 0.23 compressed textures in memory, instead of keeping them all uncompressed, which should help quite a bit.

We'll find out very soon.

[Myrten]

My ship with hundreds of parts which was lagging the game like crazy now has 30+ fps, awesome patch for me.

[Eric S]

Stop trying to make it about mods, someone said they wished the game used more of their ram for performance reasons, I mentioned that's not really a thing.

That's not the point in contention. I probably shouldn't have trimmed the quote down as far as I did.

Not the "moar mods!" mentality you describe.

Most of the people I've seen wanting 64 bit support have been asking for it so that they can run more mods without the game crashing.

Yes, there are people that think that 64 bit support will dramatically improve the performance, even a few that think that 64-bit support would magically make KSP spread it's physics workload across all CPUs. These people are misguided, we both see that. I see them as the minority of the people wanting 64-bit support, though, and I think that's the only point we disagree on.

If you can kindly point out where I said any such thing?

That wasn't directed at you, sorry if it came across that way.

[benc85]

KSP started up quite rapidly for me... The initial part loading seems to be much quicker, but that's quite possibly down to the fact that the majority of my mods seem to be broken

[Duke-49th]

The goal is to make the game smoother in all cases (So everything you describe) without actually changing the game.

They've specifically described that a system which could run 400 parts at 20 FPS, the same system can now run 700 parts at 40 FPS.

I will keep that in mind and blame you if not

(Jokes only ;-) )

I had serious FPS impacts with rockets about 150 parts. So I hope I can launch rockets now with 200 parts with at least 15-20fps...that still would make me very happy.

Downloading it right now..my fingers are itchy...

Edited December 17, 2013 by Duke-49th

[Beachernaut]

My ship with hundreds of parts which was lagging the game like crazy now has 30+ fps, awesome patch for me.

Good to hear. Maybe I can go back to making monstrosities again.

[CoriW]

So I just noticed something.

If I recall correctly, the "Max Physics Delta Time" in 0.22 was by default set to 0.10, and it's always been the case that you could increase performance by lowering that number... However I just started up 0.23 and noticed that by default it's set to 0.04. So I would be willing to bet, that one of the reasons for such a performance increase, is because of the lowered "Max Physics Delta Time".

[jfx]

Fits the preliminary results from the cpu performance thread.

What a joke. No wonder it is so far down on the changelog.

[_Aramchek_]

That's not the point in contention.

Apparently the point in contention is that I told someone who seemed to be of the impression that better ram usage meant better fps, that the myth wasn't true, but by all means carry on.

[Whackjob]

I can verify seeing pretty big gains with the optimizations. My bruisers appear to run quite nicely. I may even be able to break the ten thousand part threshold.

[liweih]

Hope to meet the improvement ASAP. But I have to go to work first.

[Duke-49th]

So I just noticed something.

If I recall correctly, the "Max Physics Delta Time" in 0.22 was by default set to 0.10, and it's always been the case that you could increase performance by lowering that number... However I just started up 0.23 and noticed that by default it's set to 0.04. So I would be willing to bet, that one of the reasons for such a performance increase, is because of the lowered "Max Physics Delta Time".

Must be.

I cannot notice performance improvements beside faster loading times. Thats all on my side.

Can it be that improvements are only noticeable with Intel CPU's and Nvidia GFX cards?

[thiosk]

If whackjob is seeing performance improvements, then I'm optimistic some of my larger craft will run better as well.

We shall see.

[Boris_T_Roach]

My 500 part Geo-stationary power station fairly whizzed upto orbit under 0.23

Just need to find the mechjeb fix and I'm ready to build KSS 23, the CommSats and all the other infrastructure needed to run a sandbox space program

Boris

I may just play with career mode a bit though... seems a shame to waste squad's hard work on it

[OrbitusII]

Haven't noticed much of a performance increase personally (it's there... but it's not significant). HOWEVER, that is due to my ancient, 256MB Asus GeForce 8400GS, not any game issues. I'm hoping to get a new EVGA GT640 (or at least some money towards it) for Christmas, so I should get to experience the optimizations before 0.24.

[dudester28]

So I hear that there are relatively large performance increases. Will this reduce the problems I have from my graphics card which I have been told is really old?

It is ATI Radeon HD 3200 (I hear it's pretty old)

(I don't really have time to start up the game and check for myself. Finals are tomorrow )

[Rowsdower]

Glad to see you've been finding some large performance gains so far.

[Daishi]

So I just noticed something.

If I recall correctly, the "Max Physics Delta Time" in 0.22 was by default set to 0.10, and it's always been the case that you could increase performance by lowering that number... However I just started up 0.23 and noticed that by default it's set to 0.04. So I would be willing to bet, that one of the reasons for such a performance increase, is because of the lowered "Max Physics Delta Time".

Did a few experiments. Turned 0.23's "Max Physics Delta Time" back up to 0.22 stock value (0.10) and ran some framerate tests on a 250 part vessel with fraps.

Repeated the same tests on a 0.23 0.04 (version stock) setting, a 0.23 0.10 setting, and a 0.22 (version stock) 0.10 setting.

0.23 "Fenrir C00". 251parts (w\o clamps), MPDT 0.04 (stock)

27FPS on launchpad

23FPS on ascent

25fps on 1st stage seperation, debris out of physics range. 159 parts

25fps on 2nd stage seperation, debris out of physics range, 126 parts

0.23 "Fenrir C00". 251parts (w\o clamps), MPDT 0.10 (old .22 stock)

29FPS on launchpad

20FPS on ascent

20fps on 1st stage seperation, debris out of physics range. 159 parts

20fps on 2nd stage seperation, debris out of physics range, 126 parts

0.22 "Fenrir C00". 251parts (w\o clamps), MPDT 0.10 ( stock)

9FPS on launchpad

8FPS on ascent

15fps on 1st stage seperation, debris out of physics range. 159 parts

16fps on 2nd stage seperation, debris out of physics range, 126 parts

0.23 still preforms superior, irregardless of what physics delta time you set it at. I wonder why they decided to change it.

System specs - i7 970 (12 cores at 3.20gHz), 12gigs of ram, GTX580 (game antialiasing offloaded to gpu with the nVidia control panel on all game versions)

Edited December 18, 2013 by Daishi

[numerobis]

Why would a smaller deltaT be expected to improve performance? I'd expect (and I experience) the opposite: each timestep is going to take the time that it takes; bigger timesteps means you get through simulated time in less real time. I tend to run on smaller timesteps because the simulation gets wonky at 10 frames per simulated second.

My guess for why 0.04 rather than 0.1 is that the whole thing is faster, so Squad felt that people wouldn't notice the system bogging down.

[Lazro]

Higher physics delta-t means physics calculations tale longer and thus take less cpu resources. However, fps goes to shizch. I slid my delta-t down all the way a long time ago.

EDIT: That said, a weak CPU should not play with low physics delta-t. Giving your CPU more time to think allows for better performance in some cases.

[Duke-49th]

Glad to see you've been finding some large performance gains so far.

And I found some big impacts on my fps. Thats why I did not noticed the improvements

I smile but thats not really funny.

When I watch Kerbin I got massive impacts. The higher I go (like orbit) the more impact I have. (8fps @ 6parts)

When I watch the stars, the fps is beyond 60fps...(I locked to 60fps during settings). (same rocket...6 parts)

This seems to be a bug..and now I will read forum to find a solution...

[Hidden Gunman]

I'm on an old duo core 2.4 rig, with a 9600 card at the moment, and although fps isn't great, it's lag free and sweet. Nice...

[OrbitusII]

Switched over to the family MacBook Pro, despite it's only remotely better graphics, and I'm definitely seeing some improvements over past versions. The terrain still causes a pretty large FPS drop but once I get past Kerbin's terrain unloading distance everything is smooth and beautiful. I still need that new GPU, though…

[cypher_00]

My FPS was always pretty good but I did have horrible plopping noises every 10 seconds or so. I'm really glad that is gone now. I can finally chill out and spaaaaace.

[kzauner]

Can it be that improvements are only noticeable with Intel CPU's and Nvidia GFX cards?

Definitely not. My Laptops AMD-E450 (integrated GPU) also handles stuff a lot better now. I even have to use the 'no speedstepping' Powermode so KSP doesn't get 'bumpy'. And its the first time that KSP is actually playable in 1366x768 on this machine.

As a side note: the VAB still lags like hell with 3-4 fps ...