I have found a problem with system performance.

[GenJeFT]

Hi everyone, I dont know if I am the first person to notice this or not.

It seems that KSP is limiting itself to 798 megs of ram at any given time and no more then 798 megs of ram. Unsuprisingly this leads to some massive peformance issues. I have 6 gigs of ram open for use and if KSP could access all that it would be very good and would get me more then 1FPS for some of my bigger ships. It usualy goes back up to 30 or 60 in space.

I do not know if that memory limit is a limitation of the game engine or what, but if its fixxable somehow I would like to know how I can fix it or if that problem will be fixxed in the future.

[sal_vager]

Hi GeneFT, I just checked mine and it was using 791 in the VAB, which spiked to 891 when going to launch and is currently on 826 on the pad, I guess KSP just uses what it needs.

[GeneralIssue]

If I remember correctly, The VAB is so data-intensive because each individual part has it\'s own separate shaders/texture map, as opposed to during flight, where the ship/each complete expended and ejected stage is considered a single \'part\'?

I think that\'s it, I haven\'t done any real game asset creation in years so I may be am most assuredly talking out of my ass.

[GenJeFT]

Hi GeneFT, I just checked mine and it was using 791 in the VAB, which spiked to 891 when going to launch and is currently on 826 on the pad, I guess KSP just uses what it needs.

Odd. I wonder if it changes based on the system. My game starts, goes to 798 megs of ram used, and then sits there. Never changes above that or below that, not for anything. I monitored it

for over an hour and never saw any change to ram usage. With my biggest ship to date I was at 1FPS with 4% processor usage and 798 megs of ram used out of 5 gigs available at the time. So my game is not taking what it needs to run correctly.

Maybe if I run it with with the 'run as admin' setting turned on. I will try that for my next letsplay.

If I remember correctly, The VAB is so data-intensive because each individual part has it\'s own separate shaders/texture map, as opposed to during flight, where the ship/each complete expended and ejected stage is considered a single \'part\'?

Ejected stages made 0 difference with system resource usage.

[sal_vager]

This is just based on what I have read and remember so may be wrong, but KSP isn\'t a memory intensive game, nor is it graphically intensive, if you check your cpu you\'ll see it runs quite high, that\'s because most of what KSP is, is physics calculations hidden from the player.

Supposedly the calculations could be handled by PhysX instead, which can can offload the calculations to the GFX card, but so far Unity, which KSP is built with, doesn\'t support that.

In short it\'s your cpu that\'s the bottleneck with this game, maybe later that will change and the gpu can do the hard work instead.

The more parts you have on your rocket, the more physics calculations need to be done, so big rockets are hard work for me on my old Athlon.

Edit: Ahh right I didn\'t see the 4% cpu usage, sorry about that, mines running around 80 to 90%

[softweir]

In short it\'s your cpu that\'s the bottleneck with this game...

Except he\'s seeing 4% CPU usage, which doesn\'t look like it\'s CPU-bound!

With my biggest ship to date I was at 1FPS with 4% processor usage and 798 megs of ram used out of 5 gigs available...

If you\'ve got 1FPS with 4% processor usage then that strongly suggests that either: a) Your GPU isn\'t up to rendering the game (which I doubt), or the game is spamming error messages to the KSP_data/output_log.txt file which slows things down. (There may be some other problem -I get dreadful performance if I force BOINC to get too greedy with CPU bandwidth!)

Do you have any figures on GPU load while running KSP?

My machine uses no more RAM than yours does, and a lot less than it used to use. This suggests that Mu\'s new terrain system is vastly more memory-efficient than earlier versions. (It was the terrain which used most ram once it had developed far enough.)

[Elude]

I find it rather unnecessary for each rocket to give off its own individual particle effect. It would be nice if somehow the game could manifest a single effect for all the rockets going of when they are grouped together and only spawn their own individual effects when they separate. This would help performance tremendously if it could be done.

[GenJeFT]

Except he\'s seeing 4% CPU usage, which doesn\'t look like it\'s CPU-bound!

If you\'ve got 1FPS with 4% processor usage then that strongly suggests that either: a) Your GPU isn\'t up to rendering the game (which I doubt), or the game is spamming error messages to the KSP_data/output_log.txt file which slows things down. (There may be some other problem -I get dreadful performance if I force BOINC to get too greedy with CPU bandwidth!)

Do you have any figures on GPU load while running KSP?

It is entirely possible that the problem lies with the GPU. It would be odd since I have two GPU cards in one but I would not be suprised. I will test it later and see if thats it. Its a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295 with 3.6 gigs of ram and two cores both of which are enabled according to my control panel.

Maybe I am getting error spammed to death.

Also, so far BOINK is the only program that has EVER use 100% of my computers CPU. So far with anything other then BOINK Ive only seen 30% CPU usage tops.

[Ydoow]

It\'s a graphics bottle-neck and it\'s KSP related.

You can clearly tell because in the VAB if you look at your ship, then move your camera off the ship FPS instantly shoots to normal speeds.

Others made mention of it shaders bogging down your GPU, and that\'s what I remember reading from Harvester somewhere. I desperately want it fixed. So. So. Bad.

I don\'t even see why I need shaders in the VAB.

[FourTee2]

It\'d probably be a good idea to find out what the least powerful GPU is that can avoid this problem...

[GenJeFT]

Todays Tests for KSP.

In the VAB I get 59 FPS when not looking a the ship, and 19 to 25 while looking at the ship.

KSP is using 407 megs of ram and 1% to 4% of processor. Averages 2.5% processor usage.

On launch pad CPU usage peaks at an average of 12% (KSP is only using CPU 0, CPU 1 to CPU 7 not used by KSP most of them are actualy 'parked') Ram usage now 925 megs.

1 to 5 FPS.

FPS jumps right up to 59 the moment the main menu is opened and the simulation is paused.

GPU Test

In VAB video card peaks at 19% load, 4% memory load at the above mentioned FPS.

GPU core 1 clock runs at 576 MHz, memory running at 1008 MHz and shader clock at 1242 MHz with 19% usage.

Core two is at the same clock readings, with 2% to 5% GPU load.

Both GPU cores clocks max at 576MHz core clock, 1008 MHz Memory clock, and 1242 MHz Shader Clock.

On launchpad

Core 1 running at same max MHz as above, with max of 19% load.

Core 2 running at same max MHz as above with a max of 89% load.

Only 950 megs of 3 gigs of video card memory used.

GPU hits 48C but does not go over.

Conclusion.

Video card not fully used, possible core 1 is not being used by KSP much for some reason.

Also, probably error spammed to death.

Results logged to file.

Program used to monitor GPU is TechPowerUP GPU-Z 0.6.0

Supporting evidence, When the ship is launched FPS goes back up to the 25 to 40 range before parts are seperated. Worst performance is on the ground at the launchpad.

How do I get to the KSP log files to see if I get error spammed to death?

[sal_vager]

Core 2 running at same max MHz as above with a max of 89% load.

That seems more like it, I couldn\'t believe you could run KSP at only 4% cpu, thats idling.

Now I feel a bit less stupid at least, you\'d have to get an answer from the dev team but as far as I know, a program wont necessarily use all the resources on a system, if a program only needs 20% of your ram (for example), that\'s all it\'s going to take, a few 1 megabyte textures aren\'t going to take all 512 megs of video ram for instance, and the ground is procedurally generated, not a texture.

Whats taking up the last 11% on your system when KSP is under load? You might find It cant take anymore as there\'s nothing free.

[GenJeFT]

That seems more like it, I couldn\'t believe you could run KSP at only 4% cpu, thats idling.

Now I feel a bit less stupid at least, you\'d have to get an answer from the dev team but as far as I know, a program wont necessarily use all the resources on a system, if a program only needs 20% of your ram (for example), that\'s all it\'s going to take, a few 1 megabyte textures aren\'t going to take all 512 megs of video ram for instance, and the ground is procedurally generated, not a texture.

Whats taking up the last 11% on your system when KSP is under load? You might find It cant take anymore as there\'s nothing free.

That 89% is the GPU, not CPU.

Note this line.

Todays Tests for KSP.

KSP is using 407 megs of ram and 1% to 4% of processor. Averages 2.5% processor usage.

On launch pad CPU usage peaks at an average of 12% (KSP is only using CPU 0, CPU 1 to CPU 7 not used by KSP most of them are actualy 'parked') Ram usage now 925 megs.

1 to 5 FPS.

I have 8 CPUs in this thing, and KSP only uses 12% of one of those CPUs tops. Each CPU runs at 3.34GHz. I dont overclock anything on this system (I really dont need to).

The 89% is for Core 2 of the GPU, which is different then the CPU. I have a two core GPU installed.

I am basicaly running a full on network server as a desktop. I have plans to build an even more powerfull system sometime in the future once I have the money.

The GPU is the weak point of this system, any game I run on max grapics uses no more then 30% of the CPUs ability (usualy under 10%). Its the GPU that holds this computer back.

Even Napoleon Total War at max settings takes about 12% to 18% of my CPU, kills my GPU unfortunetly.

The only program that brings this systems CPU above idle is BOINK.

At this moment I have 80 programs running and my CPU registers 0% usage.

With 360 programs I just touch 30% usage of my CPUs (about 7 of those are games all running at once).

At 366 programs I simply run out of Ram and get a memory error.

*edit*

Hence why I consider 1 FPS an issue. On this system there is 0 reason for 1 FPS.

*another edit*

BOINC not BOINK

[sal_vager]

Sorry I saw the word Core and assumed you meant the cpu core, I thought you had moved on from the gfx card, I didn\'t realize you owned such an impressive machine, I\'m jealous

Stupid and jealous

[GenJeFT]

Sorry I saw the word Core and assumed you meant the cpu core, I thought you had moved on from the gfx card, I didn\'t realize you owned such an impressive machine, I\'m jealous

Stupid and jealous

Dont be to jealous. This computer has heat issues like you would not believe and power requirements about 3x what a normal computer has. I had to put in a 1.25KW power supply to be on the safe side and it produces more heat then most electric space heaters. When I was in college I did not have to turn the heater on untill halfway into winter because the computer was heating my room on its own. Got to be a nightmare during the summer because my room did not have AC. I had to open the window and the door and run a fan to suck the AC in from the hallway. Otherwise it was like being back in Iraq again (not quite Kuwait, good god...).

[Zephram Kerman]

Clearly your computer is woefully inadequate to play KSP with us big boys. Needs more CPUzars!

Actually, this sounds a lot like the bugged debris problem. Open your persistent.sfs and look for anything with a value of NAN. Each one of those causes an error which slows down the game a little bit, and they add up fast. See this thread: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=8814.0 or just delete persistent.sfs and start over with a clean sky.

[sal_vager]

Yeah I know that thanks, both the persistence trick and that my Pc is old.

To be honest there hasn\'t really been a need to get a new cpu, my Athlon 64 3700 with Radeon HD4850 may be old but it\'s fine, it runs oblivion, dead space and fallout 3 smoothly with everything on max, the last \'big\' games I bought, I prefer the smaller Indie games these days.

A new cpu usually means a new board, probably new ram, I expect I could do with a new gfx card as well.

Despite this, and that I\'m running KSP in wine, I see good performance except on very large ships and when too many craft are in the same spot, especially when those craft use mods like the community base, the new terrain is actually faster than the old one.

It\'s my processor that sees the biggest hit from KSP, especially when pulseaudio has a fit, but as soon as I kill that the lag vanishes, honestly I think my biggest bottleneck is my sound system.

Edit: Anyway enough about my knackered old Pc, this thread is about GenJeFT\'s findings, something he spotted which is important is that KSP isn\'t making use of all the cores available to it, this might be a limitation of the Unity game engine on which KSP is built, perhaps it\'s worth looking up Unities capabilities?

[GenJeFT]

Clearly your computer is woefully inadequate to play KSP with us big boys. Needs more CPUzars!

Actually, this sounds a lot like the bugged debris problem. Open your persistent.sfs and look for anything with a value of NAN. Each one of those causes an error which slows down the game a little bit, and they add up fast. See this thread: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=8814.0 or just delete persistent.sfs and start over with a clean sky.

I found one NAN error and I know exactly which piece of debrie it is. It slammed into the surface of Kerbal from orbit and somehow did not explode. I will remove it and see if that helps.

[cteam]

I hate glichy pices like that thay are anyoning

[Zephram Kerman]

Clearly your computer is woefully inadequate to play KSP with us big boys. Needs more CPUzars!

@ Sal. Sorry, rest assured I wasn\'t serious. That would be a horribly mean thing to say. And, hypocritical too. (I\'m running a hand-me-down, and my CPU goes to max with KSP, but the frame rate is ok enough once it gets away from the ground.) What I wrote was intended to be ridiculous, hence the winkie at the end. Like you, I prefer the small indie games, especially the free stuff... lots of unusual and interesting ideas out there.

[sal_vager]

Mate I\'m not the kind to take offense, not easily anyway and I\'m ok with your comment, actually looking back I thought you were joking about GenJeFT\'s supercomputer but I decided it\'d be wrong to remove my post.

You haven\'t hurt my feelings honest

By the way, your avatar has vanished, I have been waiting for a chance to bring it up, and if you want a free game and don\'t already have it, Fallout 1 is currently free on GOG until tonight.

Also this is really cool and atmospheric: http://deadcyborg.com/

Anyway, so this comment has some semblance of continuity with GenJeFT\'s original post, I have been trying to find info on Unity that might shed light on his issue, no luck so far but I\'ll let you know when I find something.

[GenJeFT]

I prefer the small indie games, especially the free stuff... lots of unusual and interesting ideas out there.

Ive been playing Dwarf Fortress a lot recently. I fail to see how its difficult. Complicated yes, difficult, not really.

Anyway, so this comment has some semblance of continuity with GenJeFT\'s original post, I have been trying to find info on Unity that might shed light on his issue, no luck so far but I\'ll let you know when I find something.

Thanks. I have messed with that program before a little bit but I do most of my coding in Visual Basic (still C++ but with an interface I find easier to use right now).

[sal_vager]

Ok here is some stuff on Unity, apparently Unity is currently 32 bit only, and though it supports multi threads and can use more than one core, most of it can\'t, also it can offload the physics to a spare nvidia gpu, but only to one of them.

KSP is of course subject to the same limitations, which is also why we have the kraken bug, Unity was never designed to handle the big numbers KSP needs in order to work.

Here\'s Unity\'s PhysX page : http://unity3d.com/unity/engine/physics

Here\'s Nvidia\'s faq on multi core gpu\'s and SLI : http://www.nvidia.com/object/physx_faq.html#q4

And here\'s a bit on the Unity forums about it\'s 32bit nature and it\'s ability to handle multi core cpu\'s : http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/38179-unity-don-t-support-multi-core-CPU?p=245049&viewfull=1#post245049

I guess until the software behind KSP improves, we\'ll continue to see hardware limitations, GenJeFT\'s hotrod PC might be too powerful to show KSP as more than a blip on his other cpu\'s and gpu\'s, maybe someone with a more toned down Pc can have a go at benchmarking?