More Focus on FPS

[willwolvescry]

I know that there was a small update to help with some of the FPS but I still don't see a difference since I've been running 10 fps before and now and at best get 20 and that's either looking straight up or down and I have tuned down most of the features just to get to this point. Why not put in a functionality that focuses specifically on increasing fps. I don't care if its a simple menu choice in in graphic settings. I would like something that addresses this a little more than they normally do. I know it maybe a far fetched idea but maybe look into upgrading KSP to a 64-bit system. Maybe even add a sort of managment tool that looks after your frame rates and or memory usage. Just an idea.

[austincurr]

It's not that easy. 64-bit is quite unstable on Windows and Mac (Though I believe the linux version works fine). I know it'd be nice if KSP would run on basic computers but the physics and Unity's quirks plus the fact this is still considered an alpha make performance (which is not a priority compared to features and such) not as good as it eventually will be. Also, 2x framerate sounds like more than a minor improvement. There was a tip somewhere on how to increase fps more, something to do with water.

[6.forty]

64bit on linux works wonderfully for me, my KSP is almost always using 4GB+ memory and has yet to crash once. Performance has been more or less the same as I was getting on Windows.

And I swear there is some multithreading voodoo going on somewhere. I don't know how else KSP could be using more than 25% of my quad-core, but I seen't it.

[CaptRobau]

If you're running 10 FPS you're PC is simply not up to it. Maybe it's time for a new one?

[Amram]

I know that there was a small update to help with some of the FPS but I still don't see a difference since I've been running 10 fps before and now and at best get 20 and that's either looking straight up or down and I have tuned down most of the features just to get to this point. Why not put in a functionality that focuses specifically on increasing fps. I don't care if its a simple menu choice in in graphic settings. I would like something that addresses this a little more than they normally do. I know it maybe a far fetched idea but maybe look into upgrading KSP to a 64-bit system. Maybe even add a sort of managment tool that looks after your frame rates and or memory usage. Just an idea.

I don't think you really understand what it is that KSP does that is demanding, and what it is your system must be capable of to have good performance.

A 64 bit release, should they ever get one stable, would do nothing to solve your FPS issues. It will alleviate the 3.2gb memory limits and thats it. You problem sounds like integrated or otherwise very outdated graphics. Is it a laptop per chance?

Even so, you will not see a 300% increase regardless of the optimising they do, which means you aren't going to get above the 30's for FPS while looking around. Not without an upgrade. For that matter, i doubt they'll achieve a 200% performance bump overall through optimising, so I doubt you'd ever see 20's.

If you've turned everything off and performance is still so poor, that's a very clear sign that what you have is not the right tool for the job. And it doesn't matter what the game is, its always true. Once you have to turn everything off and it still runs poor, the message is clear. What you have doesn't match up to what they saw as the minimum viable hardware. Maybe it was good when you bought it, maybe it was low end, i don't know and it doesn't matter. Its obviously very low end now or you'd see considerably more than 10fps.

Sounds to me like its well past time for an upgrade.

[theend3r]

I have everything on max and still need to launch over a thousand parts to even near 10 fps. Using a laptop. As the others said, it's time for an upgrade.

[Sirrobert]

How many parts is your rocket, for it to run on 10 FPS?

[theend3r]

My 713 part standard lifter runs at cca 12 fps at launchpad due to it being an insane asparagus (6 layers). The last update helped a lot, it was about 4-5 before. Once I launch it and the first stage is detached it's pretty smooth.

[leax256]

the biggest problem is all these companys saying how awesomely powerful their stuff is, I look at it and it's a 1.3ghz dualcore.

[MSD]

I still would like to have backwards-compatability with my 8080 processor.. but pff, like that will ever happen.

In the end it's hard to judge, because I get more fps in far-cry than I get on KSP... for me that is comparing apples with oranges.

[austincurr]

I have everything on max and still need to launch over a thousand parts to even near 10 fps. Using a laptop. As the others said, it's time for an upgrade.

What laptop is that?! Must be an expensive one.

[Commissioner Tadpole]

OP's problem may be with atmospheres. They lag the game. Real bad.

If you don't believe me, try comparing the performance on Dres and Eve. I have a probe on Ike and the game runs very fast when I switch to it, but when I switch to my Eve rover with around the same ammount of parts, the game lags whenever I put the camera in a position so that it has to render Eve's thick atmosphere.

An option to have a low-res atmosphere would help.

[GluttonyReaper]

OP's problem may be with atmospheres. They lag the game. Real bad.

If you don't believe me, try comparing the performance on Dres and Eve. I have a probe on Ike and the game runs very fast when I switch to it, but when I switch to my Eve rover with around the same ammount of parts, the game lags whenever I put the camera in a position so that it has to render Eve's thick atmosphere.

An option to have a low-res atmosphere would help.

I always thought it was the oceans causing this lag. I suppose it's kinda hard to tell though, because all planets with atmospheres also have oceans.

[Pixel of Life]

I always thought it was the oceans causing this lag. I suppose it's kinda hard to tell though, because all planets with atmospheres also have oceans.

Apart from Duna and Jool. I'm fairly certain it is (at least partially) caused by the oceans - decreasing the maxSubdivision value in the settings config file seems to make the game run MUCH smoother whenever there's water nearby. It does, however, have the unfortunate side effect of making the water appear lower than it actually is. I haven't really paid attention to how this works on other bodies, but it sure does increase FPS quite a lot on Kerbin. I'd imagine it works just as well elsewhere.

[TimMartland]

I have a very powerful PC but due to limits on KSP (4GB cap, 32bit) I end up lagging. When I use large ships, I push to the limit of KSP not my PC

[MR4Y]

Well, there are two issues mostly. KSP doesn't look like a game that uses parallel processing and it's not 64 bit. To top that, not every KSP player has dedicated graphics. Then you have the launcher changing terrain setting to max when you apply config changes(yes, even if you put them in the lowest setting). Then you have the procedural terrain stuff for the Mun and other planets, which is nice enough to kick in when you're into said planet's SOI, eating performance as well. And the list goes on.

[jwenting]

I always thought it was the oceans causing this lag. I suppose it's kinda hard to tell though, because all planets with atmospheres also have oceans.

except Duna

and Eve...

But yes, reflections are the main reason for lag after overly part heavy ships.

[GluttonyReaper]

Apart from Duna and Jool. I'm fairly certain it is (at least partially) caused by the oceans - decreasing the maxSubdivision value in the settings config file seems to make the game run MUCH smoother whenever there's water nearby. It does, however, have the unfortunate side effect of making the water appear lower than it actually is. I haven't really paid attention to how this works on other bodies, but it sure does increase FPS quite a lot on Kerbin. I'd imagine it works just as well elsewhere.

Oh. Right. Forgot about Duna.

[willwolvescry]

I found a thing on Spaceport that simply replaces the settings config to allow the game to look great yet bring the frame rate up to between 30-60 at all times even with the mods I have. I would say to put it in that game permanently but it drops the resolution down to 1280x720.

Edited January 2, 2014 by willwolvescry

[JackGruff]

If you're running 10 FPS you're PC is simply not up to it. Maybe it's time for a new one?

KSP looks worse than Flight Simulator 2000.

I wonder which game OP's computer has a better time running.

[Depth]

I have a very powerful PC but due to limits on KSP (4GB cap, 32bit) I end up lagging. When I use large ships, I push to the limit of KSP not my PC

The memory use is mostly textures and has very little to do with the lag at that stage. The game engine only uses one thread, so that single thread is too strained to support the physics in real-time; more memory wouldn't solve that. And when you push the limits of KSP you get the Kraken.