What is your part limit?

[SkyRender]

Being on an AMD-centric system, the dreaded part lag starts hitting me fast and early, around the 200- to 300-part mark. It makes constructing anything interesting a bit of a challenge, to say the least.

[Sun]

The largest ship I ever built was an successful interstellar one that had about 1,200 parts. Though, about a month before that, I tried to launch a colonization ship with 800+ parts which kept crashing the game.

[Blo0d]

how do u know how much part u have?

[Pecan]

how do u know how much part u have?

U us md r u pr 'i' in mp

[Giggleplex777]

I play with my max delta time slider at 1.00, so the most my PC can handle is about 300 parts. With a max delta time of 0.03, I can fly 1500 at 30fps, but I hate waiting.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Giggleplex777

[Jovus]

Your options aren't low enough for me. Where's the 'yellow timer with a mk1 pod on the launchpad' option?

(KSP isn't meant for laptops.)

[Jon Tash]

The most I got from KSP was a space station with 267 parts plus two ships docked (with 30 to 50 parts each). FPS was really low, barely unplayable. Another thing that drop FPS is the number of active vessels. I remember that I had one time more than 50 active vessel in the Kerbol System and it was also unplayable. That is, I'm using the same laptop that I bought back in the day of the 0.8 version of the game. Now I have to worry about overheating my computer.

[Laie]

Yellow clock at about 250 parts. Noticable slowdown at twice that. Docking becomes nasty at about 600 parts.

The only time I notice framerate issues is when 200 parts disassemble.

[Rithsom]

Being on an AMD-centric system, the dreaded part lag starts hitting me fast and early, around the 200- to 300-part mark. It makes constructing anything interesting a bit of a challenge, to say the least.

You are not alone, I have an AMD processor too. Lag starts around 150 parts for me...

[Whackjob]

Hai guise, whas' goin' on in this thread?

#EDIT: Screenshot or two promised for later.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Whackjob

[NFUN]

You are not alone, I have an AMD processor too. Lag starts around 150 parts for me...

I must be really used to lag, because I regularly launch ships over 300 parts and can't recall if I lagged. The main problem I have is not with part counts, but when multiple vessels are in physics range...

[xtoro]

Not sure what you consider "lagging" or "slowing down" but I consider it being when you get the yellow clock, because then, technically, the game is not running at 100% speed anymore and it's slowing down.

For me, I start getting the yellow clock flashing around the 600 part mark, but still mostly green. But as for actually noticing my computer slowing down to where it's getting annoying, I'm not sure... I can fly the B9 planes that are 1200+ parts quite well. I'll have to check what the actual game speed it running at next time I play.

An example, i just finished building this SSTO reusable fuel station, it is 650 parts, and that is after cutting it back from 890 because i though i should share it at some point lol.

http://i.imgur.com/Q9TZthx.jpg

I cant seem to find anything to do with small craft, like a small SSTO, idk what to do with one once i have made it, i mean i tried making a small SSTO with cargo bays for an example, and this is my version of small (360 parts)

http://i.imgur.com/pzlMBlB.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/D21Eg3t.jpg

I can see here in all your screenshots that your computer is slowing down already because your clock is yellow. Meaning it's running slower than real-time.

[Beowolf]

I don't launch anything with that many parts anymore. But in orbit, once I assembled a station that got pretty laggy when it got over 600 parts. But this is on a nice MSI gaming laptop. On my previous ASUS I had frequent launchpad lag problems and had to play with that physics timeslice slider. I could get KSP nice and smooth that way, but it'd be running at slower than real-time until the first stage or two dropped. That PC slowed down somewhere in the 200-300 range, but that was quite a while back and KSP's changed a lot internally, too.

[Beowolf]

You are not alone, I have an AMD processor too. Lag starts around 150 parts for me...

My guess is that's only because most consumer PCs with AMD CPUs were built for low-cost rather than performance. AMD's giving more bang-for-the-buck than Intel in low-end laptops, and that's where most manufacturers use them.

So you can console yourselves figuring that an Intel laptop that cost exactly the same would probably be a little bit slower at KSP.

[razark]

Why do the options start so high?

[Hannu]

I made 1000-1500 parts crafts (most of them were struts) when joints was weak and 3.75 m parts had not been invented yet. Most massive were Apollo-style single launch Eve missions and fuel transports to surface base on Tylo. They were laggy but ascent was possible with patience (and hours of experiments). A minute in game took 2-3 minutes in real time. Now such a vehicle can have around 300-500 parts and I do not need more massive launchers.

Now some of my space stations have about 500 parts when there are many docked crafts (landers, tugs, interplanetary crew vechicles, station extensions). The lag is noticeable but does not disturb docking.

[Frank_G]

I always try to. Keep my part count as low as possible, usually below 100 parts per craft. But i have stations and craft for the large scale missions, usually build using orbital assembly, that easily reach a part count around 1000.

[Whackjob]

Part limit turned out to be 6,700 parts. Then the parts tree system fails, the save file corrupts, and the ship is totally lost.

[magnemoe]

I always try to. Keep my part count as low as possible, usually below 100 parts per craft. But i have stations and craft for the large scale missions, usually build using orbital assembly, that easily reach a part count around 1000.

Yes, problem is the slideshow then docking together, this is why I try to limit to 500 parts

[Jas1126]

Far below 100 for Kerbin - Mun - Minmus missions. Rendezvous with tankers is a primary gameplay element for me. When I want to go anywhere else I wait until I have nuclear and Ion capabilities; the part counts are still below 100.

On a crazy day, however, I don't stop until my computer is on its hands and knees begging. Usually around 1,700 parts. Lag is something that I don't let stop me. 1 FPS is fine and dandy as it will improve as stages are lost (and I head back to KSC and delete expended stages).

[PhaserArray]

I do my best to keep everything I have to a low part count (<200). My laptop starts majorly slowing down around 500, a bit above that, it is a slideshow.

[Tail_TL]

I'm surprised how almost nobody is checking their FPS.. Do You even benchmark bro?... When I built a space station around kerbin it had 216 parts.. and my Fps was 28-40, but in 64bit I gained about up to 30-50 Fps.. as you can see I didn't have such stable fps, it fluctuated a lot. I actually start feeling un-smooth gameplay when I hit 55 Fps.. (My Fps is locked on 60) So for me... anywhere near 30 Fps is ******* annoying and don't want to play it, heck, even at 50 fps I start to get annoyed because I my controls start to feel a bit sluggish (Very little but still).

It would be great if everybody told what FPS they are getting instead of saying based on "Feeling"... because Others consider as 30 Fps "Playable", I don't even consider about 48-50 Fps as playable because it gets choppy and I'm so used to playing with silky smooth 60 Fps... (I can't wait till I get a 120Hz monitor so I could enjoy 120 Fps...)

[Xaiier]

This is highly dependent on the delta time slider setting. ~1500 parts can get 2 fps at 0.12 and 15 fps at 0.03, which is a HUGE difference.

[TimePeriod]

I can go above 1000 parts.

Thou I prefer as fewer parts as possible.

[LordFjord]

I'm surprised how almost nobody is checking their FPS.. Do You even benchmark bro?... When I built a space station around kerbin it had 216 parts.. and my Fps was 28-40, but in 64bit I gained about up to 30-50 Fps.. as you can see I didn't have such stable fps, it fluctuated a lot. I actually start feeling un-smooth gameplay when I hit 55 Fps.. (My Fps is locked on 60) So for me... anywhere near 30 Fps is ******* annoying and don't want to play it, heck, even at 50 fps I start to get annoyed because I my controls start to feel a bit sluggish (Very little but still).

It would be great if everybody told what FPS they are getting instead of saying based on "Feeling"... because Others consider as 30 Fps "Playable", I don't even consider about 48-50 Fps as playable because it gets choppy and I'm so used to playing with silky smooth 60 Fps... (I can't wait till I get a 120Hz monitor so I could enjoy 120 Fps...)

I wouldn't say that the poll is about FPS. You can have a vessel with very high partcount and still get a good FPS value - while the simulation speed is deep in the red - taking several seconds for one real ingame second.

I do not know exactly at what simulation rate the indicator turns yellow or red. Yellow is, at least in my opinion, still well playable, in the reds it goes downhill and things become a simulation slideshow - while you can still look around with high FPS.

I am not saying that part count does not have an effect on FPS - of course it has, BUT the major chokepoint for most players is the simulation speed, which is mostly dependent on the CPU.