A 64-bit KSP might be closer than we think(or at least Squad is working on it)

[Red Iron Crown]

I think they mentioned that they switched to double precision, which would be 64-bit floats, if I recall. It'll save clock cycles to use actual 64 bit instructions.

Ah, I didn't know that. Sounds like 64-bit would improve performance then, as double precision generally takes >2x the clock cycles per instruction.

[Red Iron Crown]

Now, I recently got myself a new machine (mostly to have more raw cpu power for KSP :-) which gave my gaming rig a chance to move from XP to 64bit win7. Or so they say. I was kinda shocked to learn it is still for the most part 32bit system, almost all thirdparty code and even some system services are still 32bit. My bet would be that Unity itself does not have big problem with 64bits (it certainly does not on linux), but cant cope with system libraries of both kinds, intertwined into a hairy mess. And that is a problem of windows ecosystem as a whole and unity can do nothing about it.

I don't think this is it, there are lots of 64-bit applications that run fine on Windows. I think Unity doesn't want to maintain two versions, so they won't go 64-bit until all their platforms are 64-bit (which will be a long time).

[Cydonian Monk]

KSP has been updated to Unity 4.3.3 which adds 64-bit for Mac

This is the best bit of news I've seen this month. Excuse me while I do my Happy Unix Dance.

Assuming it works, of course. Whatever version of Unity the launcher uses crashes for me, so.... Perhaps I'll put the Happy Unix Dance on hold.

[boxman]

I don't think this is it, there are lots of 64-bit applications that run fine on Windows. I think Unity doesn't want to maintain two versions, so they won't go 64-bit until all their platforms are 64-bit (which will be a long time).

But it is 64bit.. Only problem is that it has some severe bugs on windows version that they have yet to fix.

[radonek]

I don't think this is it, there are lots of 64-bit applications that run fine on Windows. I think Unity doesn't want to maintain two versions, so they won't go 64-bit until all their platforms are 64-bit (which will be a long time).

Makes sense. Maintaining another arch may be costly. But… unity does have both x86 and amd64 versions on linux. And potential audience for win64 is probably larger then for both linux versions combined.

And "lots" of win64 apps are just plain laughable, trust me. Right now, on my work linux desktop number of 32bit processes is: zero. Flash could be one, and if I really wanted to ramp things up, I could fire up skype to get one more. Thats it. Windows came a long way since 64bit XP (they actaully work) but still don't come even close. On my gaming rig, only "significant" win64 app is JRE. I don't claim to be windows expert, but makes more sense for me then idea of Unity making perfectly good 64bit linux port and then just dropping the ball.

[Streetwind]

This is what I said in post #3... "the platforms are simply too different". And I meant that in every possible interpretation.

For example, Windows as a platform is all about backwards compatibility. This paradigm has governed its development, and that of the software designed to run on it, since the earliest of times. Windows is a system that needs to be able to come pre-installed and just work over an entire computer's lifetime, no matter what OSes, software or hardware come before or after it, and no matter what terrible tech-illiterate you put in front of it. It's a ridiculous, impossible expectation, but they try anyway. Did you know that extended support for Windows XP, a 13 year old OS, ends in less than 30 days... and that to this day, 30 percent of all non-mobile web page accesses worldwide are still performed with Windows XP? And that when Windows XP runs out of support and encounters bugs and malware, people will blame Microsoft instead of themselves, despite years upon years of warnings and multiple support timeframe extension beyond anything Microsoft has ever offered before? Nobody cares about updating or new developments. They just want a one-time fire-and-forget solution. That is the kind of platform Windows is. That is the kind of thing a large section of Windows users demand. Thus that is the kind of thing they get delivered.

On the other hand, you have Linux. A system that expects its users to be able to, if necessary, rebuild the entire system from scratch by hand, starting with the kernel source. It does not have to care about backwards compatibility, because if a piece of software is not running, someone in the community will hack one together, and then the rest of the community will take it and improve it to the point you could never tell it used to be a hackjob born out of necessity. Linux is able to run native 64 bit because its users know what that is and care about having it; and because in many cases, they can upgrade to it for free. Of course, this kind of model means that Linux will always be a niche phenomenon, because the mass market demands a level of compatibility, backwards reliability and ease of access that it just isn't built for.

And then you have OSX, which is a Unix system stuffed into a consumer bag, trying to straddle both worlds with varying degrees of success while suffering from a level of closed system disease that makes even Windows users laugh.

Platform differences aren't just in the codebase. They are in everything, from the basic design paradigm over the targeted user base all the way to their history and future goals.

[Pecan]

That's one of the best short OS summaries I've read in a while Streetwind - good job :-)

[IrRedemption]

I would rather have multicore threading right now for ksp which can put pyhsics on diffirent cores= less lag

Edited March 14, 2014 by IrRedemption

[Motokid600]

Why did Squad choose Unity to begin with? I really want to call Unity a lack-luster, outdated turd, but I'm not educated enough in the matter so please enlighten me. Why is Unity the way it is .. in the year 2014?

[federally]

Why did Squad choose Unity to begin with? I really want to call Unity a lack-luster, outdated turd, but I'm not educated enough in the matter so please enlighten me. Why is Unity the way it is .. in the year 2014?

Probably had something to do with the fact Squad is a marketing agency dabbling in game design. They aren't exactly experienced so there's bound to be mistakes on the way or cost saving decisions that turn into regrets later, which is what I suspect the engine decision will be.

[cantab]

With the efforts they had to go to to tame the Kraken, I suspect Squad have already paid many times over for the savings Unity offered.

Of course, if they hadn't used Unity, I probably wouldn't be playing KSP right now, seeing as Unity's one of a probable minority of engines to support Linux.

[Streetwind]

Why did Squad choose Unity to begin with?

Because they want cross-platform compatibility, and there aren't many things that offer it. And when they started, no team member had even made any sort of video game before, so there was nobody able to write a custom engine. (Engine programming is really hard.)

[Kasuha]

Because they want cross-platform compatibility, and there aren't many things that offer it. And when they started, no team member had even made any sort of video game before, so there was nobody able to write a custom engine. (Engine programming is really hard.)

I don't really think cross-platform compatibility was planned to be used initially, as far as I know the game was Windows only for quite some time.

[Thiel]

Because Unity is by far the cheapest 3D engine out there which is kinda a big deal when you don't have the slightest clue how the game is going to be received.

[comham]

They could introduce a sensible asset loading system in the meantime. No need to load all of bac9's parts and the space center into memory if I'm driving a stock rover on the mun.

[Virtualgenius]

I think i would rather have a 64bit client that crashed randomly than have to keep culling mods to meet ram requirements all the time, at least the community would be assisting in nailing down the 64bit crashes for quicker resolution on the problem hopefully they release it soon

[Padishar]

I don't think you'd put up with it if "crashing randomly" means for each frame rendered there is a 10% chance of it crashing (or even 0.1% for that matter)...

[Raven.]

Because Unity is by far the cheapest 3D engine out there which is kinda a big deal when you don't have the slightest clue how the game is going to be received.

That and Unity typically doesn't charge a royalty, unlike Unreal Development Kit. Even then, for a company like Squad, there is also the issue of training. Unity has a smaller learning curve compared to the monstrosity call Unreal, which for a business, means cheaper training costs.

[manuelasa1999]

I think that maybe Unity's next release (4.4 or 5) will stop random crashes in windows and will improve the perfomance of KSP a lot, maybe Unity next release will be in a couple of months for ksp 0.25 or 0.26

[Boosterspice]

IT will be an improvement for those of us with 64-bit systems. Just have to cross our fingers and send kind emails to Unity ^^

[KvickFlygarn87]

I think i would rather have a 64bit client that crashed randomly than have to keep culling mods to meet ram requirements all the time, at least the community would be assisting in nailing down the 64bit crashes for quicker resolution on the problem hopefully they release it soon

The problems aren't on Squad's end, they're on Unity's end.

[LameLefty]

And then you have OSX, which is a Unix system stuffed into a consumer bag, trying to straddle both worlds with varying degrees of success while suffering from a level of closed system disease that makes even Windows users laugh.

This is just so full of Wrongâ„¢ I don't even know where to begin ...

Now excuse me while I go compile a few thousand open-source Unix apps on my "closed system disease"-ridden Mac.

[Nemrav]

this may be old but here's another 64bit reference thing :

http://www.twitch.tv/hocgaming/b/443077849?t=1h0m15s

but personally I don't at all mind not having 64 bit support as I only have 4gb ddr3...

[cantab]

Now excuse me while I go compile a few thousand open-source Unix apps on my "closed system disease"-ridden Mac.

Now excuse me while I go install Windows/Linux dual boots on 20 PCs from ten manufacturers. OSX isn't iOS (yet...), but it's still encumbered by Apple's business strategy of tying the software to the hardware.

(And yes I know Hackintoshes are a thing. But Apple not only don't support them, they seek to legally prohibit them.)

[Jouni]

People have been saying for something like 15 years now that the next year is going to be the year of the Linux desktop. That never happens, because there are not too many people who would want Linux desktops anymore. Things changed when Apple switched to Intel processors. Suddenly you had an operating system that could be used like Linux for most purposes, while being about as mature for desktop use as Windows. When I go to a computer science conference, for example, I see around half of the people with Apple laptops. Linux users remain a small minority even in that crowd - probably smaller than 10 years ago.

Apple hardware may be a bit more expensive than the average, but that doesn't really matter for business users. Not too long ago, you had to pay at least 3000 euros for a decent business laptop, and now you can get an expensive high-end model for that price.

The year of the Linux desktop might never happen, but the year of the Linux gaming system could. Let's see if Valve can pull out that trick