What is your part limit?

[xtoro]

Totally useless, period. Some state the number where they get the first flicker of yellow. Others seem to be of the opinion that it's not lag until you feel it -- whatever "feel" means.

Then stop complaining and post up specs and stats. Heck I even posted a video!

[Jouni]

If the mission timer is more often yellow than green when I'm looking at the sky, there's too much lag for me. The game starts behaving worse, as long burns take even longer, physics warp becomes more dangerous, and so on. This usually happens at around 200 parts on my computer.

Fps, on the other hand, is unimportant. Back in the old bad days of software rendering, 10 fps was considered good performance, while 5 fps was acceptable performance. I enjoyed the games back then, and I can still enjoy games with similar performance.

[Aragosnat]

I might be able to handle around 400-700 parts. But, I have not dared myself to go beyond 350 yet.

[Madrias]

960 parts puts me flickering yellow/red, which bottoms out my playable frame rate (I drop below 20 FPS, specifically) but I can still get it to space. 1000 puts me solid red and barely playable, but I could manage as long as precision isn't needed.

[Tail_TL]

I agree with both statements here.

My specs:

CPU: i7 4790K overclocked at 4.5Ghz

RAM: 16GB HyperX Fury ocverclocked @ 2400

Motherboard: MSI Z97-GD65 Gaming board

GPU: 2x Radeon HD 5830's crossfired and overclocked

PSU: Thermaltake 750W

HDD #1: Three Spinpoint S4's in RAID 0 config (OSes, programs and important data)

HDD #2: 1TB Western Digital Black (Storage for music, downloads and movies)

Case: Coolermaster CM690II lined with sound-deadening Spire Soundpad matting on both side panels

Case Cooling: 5 fans for case controlled by Scythe fan controller

CPU Cooling: CPU is watercooled with Corsair H80i watercooler.

I recorded a video as well. Unfortunately the recorder bogs the CPU during the game, and I do get much better FPS when not recording. I tried a few screen recorders and ended up using Bandicam.

For some reason though, I can't get FPS to show on screen. I also tried recording with FRAPS running but it also won't show it. I also downloaded a mod called ShowFPS that is supposed to show it in-game, but it doesn't seem to work with .25.

Anyways, I loaded up TimeControl because that at least shows you what percentage of game speed it's running at. But as you can see, it's still very smooth and playable even with 600 parts, and only gets better from there.

You need to watch it in HD to make out the part numbers and game speed. All graphics settings are also on MAX.

WITH screen recording software I get:

It starts off launching from the launchpad around 25-30FPS.

Stage 12(469 parts) it's just over 40FPS.

Stage 9 (285 parts) it's at 70FPS.

And it just goes up from there until I'm burning the last stage at 140FPS.

WITHOUT the screen recorder running I get much better:

It starts off launching from the launchpad around 45FPS.

Stage 12(469 parts) it's just over 65FPS.

Stage 9 (285 parts) it's at 90FPS.

And it just goes up from there until I'm burning the last stage at 160FPS.

Quite happy with the setup and I think I'll make a 1000-part ship to see what the limit is until it's not smooth anymore...

I may record another video just recording my monitor with a camera so you can see the difference. I also want to figure out how to get the FPS up on the screen...

You might want to try out MSI Afterburner. Its a really good screen recorder + It can monitor FPS and your temperatures, you can easily enable it so you can record the FPS and Temps also. Oh and its free.

[Vaporo]

I can get up to around 200-250 before the physics timer starts to turn yellow, but I build much more massive crafts than that. The largest I've ever built had 1333 parts and was used to complete the Jool-5 challenge.

[cantab]

Others seem to be of the opinion that it's not lag until you feel it -- whatever "feel" means.

This is what's useful to the OP I feel. When the lag becomes noticeable, when it becomes objectionable, are what matters to player enjoyment.

Indeed the relation between PC spec and "part limit", while of interest in itself, isn't important for the OP's situation. All they need to know is right, they've got a 500-part ship, roughly what percentage of players are going to enjoy using it without game performance issues, and from that is it worth trying to reduce the part count.

[Felsmak]

I don't really have a part limit, but I generally try to use as few parts as possible to avoid any performance issues.

[bitbucket]

I play on a toaster of a computer. My mission timer is never green. It goes red above the 250-300 part threshold, or at 3x/4x physical warp with any amount of parts. I'm used to a feeble framerate so I don't really notice, but with large ships the physics is running at one-quarter speed or worse.

Edited October 25, 2014 by bitbucket

[paul23]

I go yellow around 250 parts, however still very playable till 350 parts, after which it starts going to a standstill at 500ish parts. However this also depends on "where I am". While I am landed on a surface the max part count seems to be reduced by 100. - This is the reason I gave up on a moon base (as also nearby vehicles within 2.5 km seem to count to this lag).

[Srpadget]

My personal "limit", if you want to call it that, seems to be somewhere around 250-300 parts on the pad prior to launch. Usually much less. I just haven't ever needed more than that. Mind you, I've barely ever left Kerbin's SOI. If I ever do anything really ambitious like an Eve-return mission or Jool-5, I expect the part count will go way up.

I have no idea what my COMPUTER's limit is--I am blessed with a brand-new (I've had it maybe 2-3 months?) upper-midrange gaming rig, purchased specifically because my old machine whimpered and cried at the very thought of running KSP. At particularly busy times around one of my refueling/transfer space stations, I may have had as much as 400-500 parts in physics range at once with no perceptible lag at max graphics settings. (But don't quote me on that number; I don't actually count them up.)

[razark]

I play on a toaster of a computer. My mission timer is never green. It goes red above the 250-300 part threshold, or at 3x/4x physical warp with any amount of parts. I'm used to a feeble framerate so I don't really notice, but with large ships the physics is running at one-quarter speed or worse.

Yeah, this is where I'm at. The only time the clock is green is if I have a very small ship. I've learned to play small ships and live with the situation, plus I hardly ever leave Kerbin Localspace. I do have one station in orbit; that's the only large thing I have, and docking with it is a pain.

One of these days I need to get a new computer. This thing dates back to 2007, and wasn't exactly top of the line then.

[occ]

I have actually played with 1200 parts and not crashed, however it took approximately an hour to go through ~10 minutes of game time.

[Sky_walker]

Around 20 if I use the Klaw.

[LostOblivion]

I noticed two things.

First, I think either the game or a mod has some serious memory leaks. When loading my career save the game uses around 2 GB. If I launch a 300 part rocket the memory usage wobbles slowly and settles around 100 MB higher. If I reset to launch it rises around 50 MB higher. If I reset to VAB it rises 150-200 MB higher. If I launch it again at this point it usually stays the same, but if I revert to launch it rises around 50 or to VAB it rises around 150-200 again. If I keep doing this the game will at some point reach its memory cap of around 3600 MB and crash.

Second, people say debris count/flight count doesn't really matter when on rails, however I tried loading my 300 part vessel in a clean sandbox save vs. my 170 flight career (including debris) and where the timer is a steady yellow with a significant delay in my career, the sandbox one is flashing between green and yellow and has a slightly better frame rate. So I guess flight count does really matter.

[SpaceXray]

around 1300 parts it starts to lag badly.

[mythic_fci]

About 250 parts is my limit; 50 with the claw.

[Remkeau]

My part limit seems to be around a 1000 parts. But in orbit the framerate is much better than at the KSP. Getting the land and sea out of frame reduces lag dramatically, even on high part builds.

[WestAir]

My i7 laptop can handle 1 MK1 pod on the launchpad. My PC (tower) can handle about 200 parts before the yellow goes from blinking to solid.

[Floppster]

My stationary can handle maybe 100 parts or so before starting to lag and my laptop gets to 300+ before any noticable lag happens.

Then again, I'm both colourblind and a very patient man so all bets are off. Didn't even know about the colour of the timer before some thread like this, I always thought it was either red or greenish.

[Technical Ben]

Just as long as it's not accomplished by 990 of those parts being physicsless...

I've just noticed the error of this thread. Now we have physicsless parts, such questionnaires are pointless. :/

[Cmdr. Arn1e]

I've just noticed the error of this thread. Now we have physicsless parts, such questionnaires are pointless. :/

well, that depends... I only use the physicsless parts on small landers and things, not on my huge interplanetary beasts I've been making recently... when you have 5 modular landers in 4 cargo bays, the physicsless parts don't count as much...

[TheScareCake!]

You dont have to build +200 parts rocket to land and return from duna, when i started my career, i learnt how to get minimalistic, so i use 50-120 parts for my rockets, maybe sometimes more...

[LABHOUSE]

My normal limit (non replicas) is 1,200. My replica limit is 2,000 (not including payload). I lag at 800 parts but it is hard tl tell usually because I set the fps to 20. (Not a necro, I can post up to 3 months later)

[lukeoftheaura]

I lag with over 800 parts on my core 2 quad hardcore gaming thing