32-bit versus 64-bit

[Mast]

We all know the 32-bit version of KSP is the recommended version due to bugs in the 64-bit version.

Warning: The Windows 64-bit version is not as stable as the 32-bit one. We recommend downloading the 32-bit version unless you have a good reason to prefer x64

Now what exactly would be a valid 'good reason' to prefer the x64?

It's good there's a warning there for people who just want to get started and don't care about versions as long as it's stable. You always need a 'safe' option. But the 64-bit version is available for a reason (I suppose). It's probably better (when in doubt, higher numbers are better). I know 32-bit operating systems can only use 3.2GB memory and I suppose the same is valid for 32-bit applications. But does in matter in practice? 3.2GB per application is quite a lot after all. Are the extra bugs worth the (potential) gain?

[Engineer of Stuff]

My good reason is to see how unstabe it is. Its actually not that bad.

[Alshain]

A good reason would be that you are a glutton for punishment... really just that you like messing with things knowing they barely work.

[SAI Peregrinus]

Well, mods used to be the reason. It's pretty easy to exceed 3.2GB with a bunch of 8k textures and lots of part mods.

Sadly, the instability means that it tends to crash anyway. :/

[Hannu]

Now what exactly would be a valid 'good reason' to prefer the x64?

As far as I know, bugs depend on components of computer. Someone have less crashes and maybe they can play with it.

If you play just a stock KSP there are no reason to use 64 bit version. But there are many visually very nice mods, which takes gigabytes of memory. They can not be used in 32 bit, at least all at the same time. I installed a Linux on side of Windows just to play KSP. If I load some Visual Enhancement mods and Outer Planet mod with 8K textures it takes more than 4 GB memory. It is really beautiful. It is shame that this kind of game can not use all resources of modern computer.

[Sirrobert]

The reason 64bit is available is because people wouldn't shut up about it, dispite Squad telling everyone that it's to unstable for release. So they just released it, and now people can see that it's to unstable

As for the GB limit: It may seem like alot, but there are people here who have so many mods that they actually go over it

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Not so many mods as one might think, thou. And even without mods the game ends up going over the limit due to memory leaks.

[Robotengineer]

Stock goes over the limit without texture compression and/or turning graphics/terrain settings to lowest quality. For something as big as KSP, x64 is a necessity.

[Mast]

Ah, I wasn't aware of memory leaks being present in KSP. Not that it surprises me with such a big game with many parts and many actions to add/move/destroy those, but hey, one can hope.

Afar from that it's basically because mods blow up the game easily to over 3.2GB? Although I haven't found a recent list of 64-bit specific bugs, I'm not going to risk unnecessary crashes (that's a totally different hobby which I only practice on a specific machine) to allow one more mod or not having to restart every couple of hours. I can imagine people with very complex structures could benefit a lot from the 64-bit.

[GreeningGalaxy]

In my .25 install, I have so many mods (planet factory, KSP Interstellar, EVE, ye whole works) that it uses basically all of my 7 available gigabytes of memory. In fact, I have to run it in a lighter-weight desktop environment than my usual KDE, or it tends to freeze up. I'm on Linux, so the 64-bit version is perfectly stable, and I'd definitely feel it if my memory limit were lower. I really hope the Windows x64 version eventually works as well as the Linux one, because it's really nice to be able to load that many add-ons at once.

[Broax]

I'd just like to say that I don't have any visual mods and not that many part mods and my game easily goes over the 3.2Gb mark. I had to strip the game down to the most important mods for it to be stable.

This is my mod list:

MechJeb

Kerbal Engineer

Kerbal Alarm Clock

Docking Port Alignment

NavUtilities

HullCameraVDS

Deadly Reentry

NEAR

Crowdsourced Sience

TAC LifeSupport

TAC Selfdestruct

Distant Object

Collision FX

First Person EVA

RCS Sounds

KerbQuake

Atmospheric Sound Enhancments

Raster Prop monitor

Some of those have parts included but aren't mainly "part mods" (not in my opinion). These are the "part mods" I use:

KAS

Universal Storage

Outer Planets Mod

Stockalike Station Parts

RemoteTech

Procedural Wings

Procedural Fairings

Station Science

ScanSat

MK1 Inline Cockpit

I also installed B9 Aerospace and KW Rocketry but removed many of the parts I wasn't interested in. For example I only kept B9's air breaks and a couple of utility parts so I only kept 4 parts from this mod. KW Rocketry kept most of its parts.

Eventually I also installed Texture Replacer and Astronomer's Visual Pack but that simply was overkill so I promptly removed it. I also ended up removing many of the mods list because I was having frequent memory problems on the 32bit game, 64bit is unplayable (Kraken was a very close friend of mine when I started playing on the 64bit version) and opengl doesn't quite work on my computer (I can only play it windowed and the framerate is horrible).

I know I listed a lot of mods but I honestly wasn't expecting for them to go over 3.2Gb as most of them just add features and not that many parts... I consciously try to avoid part mods because of that issue. If only that Load on Demand mod worked maybe things would be easier.

Either way this is why I'm so interested on a stable 64bit version of the game. But I know Squad has nothing to do with that issue.

[Mast]

I'm on Linux, so the 64-bit version is perfectly stable, and I'd definitely feel it if my memory limit were lower.

Somebody forgot to tell me the 64-bit problems were Windows-only. I've heard most Linux-only bugs are solved by now, if so I'll just play KSP on that part of my machine from now on (thank God for dual-boot).

A stock install 32-bit uses slightly over 1.3 GB on my machine.

[panzer1b]

X-64 at least during .25 was my preferred system of choice. I even went to the trouble of editing out all the stupid anti-x64 crap from most mods that i ran (nyan cat on modulemanager is kaput, KAPUT I SAY!). It was about as stable as the alternative, and everything worked more or less properly.

Anyways, 0.90 added some gamebreaking bugs to X64. Career is unplayeable as the building cannot be upgraded and do not get the proper appearance. Outside of career mode i rarely enable it when i need the memory, but even that is rather unnecessary most of the time. As soon as that one bug is fixed, its back to X-64 the whole way, but until then, i guess im stuck on X-32.

[Lhathron the Elf]

I'm not exactly sure why, but I found that only the 64 bit version works on my computer. Unmodded, 64 bit works normally with never a crash ever. 32 bit, when I tried it one day to see if it would run faster, wouldn't even load, after trying multiple times. Again, this is all unmodded. So I'm not exactly sure why this happens, but it's my experience that 64 bit is better.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Lhathron the Elf

[Sirrobert]

I'm not exactly sure why, but I found that only the 64 bit version works on my computer. Unmodded, 64 bit works normally with never a crash ever. 32 bit, when I tried it one day to see if it would run faster, wouldn't even load, after trying multiple times. Again, this is all unmodded. So I'm not exactly sure why this happens, but it's my experience that 64 bit is better.

Computers are weird

[Nemrav]

But now that we know about forcing dx11 and opengl, and have the texture compression mod, why don't people just use those on 32bit to allow more mods ??

[KerBlam]

There's no competition. If you have a 64bit machine with 4+ cores, a 64bit OS, and 16GB of RAM... You should be able to use the full capabilities of that hardware, and KSP is one game that really needs the performance.

I understand that KSP has been in development for 4 years, when machines like that were rarer... If I can be grateful for anything it's that KSP has driven quite a few people to try Linux, so they can take advantage of the increased performance. something they otherwise might never have done. I'm a pure Linux user, have been since 2006, so the ONLY reason I have KSP is because it's Linux compatible.

Apart from the RAM limit, the other thing that plagues KSP is the lack of multi-threading capabilities. Most functioning computers these days have multiple CPU's and KSP does not take advantage of that at all, trying to run all processes on only one of your cores, even if you have 8. You can trick it slightly, but it's really something that needs to be addressed in the base platform of the game i.e. Unity.

In short: Wrangling texture compression to get an operational 32bit game is fine if you have 32bit OS and only 4GB of RAM... but for the rest of us, it equates to 'dumbing down' your machine, which has power and memory to spare. It's frustrating to watch your Gaming PC choke while only using a quarter of its resources.

[NathanKell]

"Smoking is bad for your health. Don't smoke...unless you have a good reason to."

Makes perfect sense amirite?

(Analogy works right down to the statistics, and George Burns living to his 90s. Outliers are outliers.)

[boxman]

We all know the 32-bit version of KSP is the recommended version due to bugs in the 64-bit version.

Now what exactly would be a valid 'good reason' to prefer the x64?

It's good there's a warning there for people who just want to get started and don't care about versions as long as it's stable. You always need a 'safe' option. But the 64-bit version is available for a reason (I suppose). It's probably better (when in doubt, higher numbers are better). I know 32-bit operating systems can only use 3.2GB memory and I suppose the same is valid for 32-bit applications. But does in matter in practice? 3.2GB per application is quite a lot after all. Are the extra bugs worth the (potential) gain?

Mods would be a good reason... It is generally less stable than 32bit version but with loads of mods it might be opposite. Also for some reason it runs more stable for some people than others. I have seen some people run only 64bit version since they had some other odd issues with 32bit one and besides the career mode issue it never crashed or bugged out in tens of hours of gameplay.

[biohazard15]

The only good reason to use Winx64 version is that you happen to be a masochist. No other reasons out there, really.

[Rarity]

Most functioning computers these days have multiple CPU's and KSP does not take advantage of that at all, trying to run all processes on only one of your cores, even if you have 8. You can trick it slightly, but it's really something that needs to be addressed in the base platform of the game i.e. Unity.

That's not true at all. The physics calculations are limited to one thread and therefore one core, yes, but the game does split tasks down at least two cores such as audio processing. You can test it yourself; build a CPU hog then compare your CPU usage to idle. You can even edit the affinity so that KSP is limited to a single core and the audio may distort.

[BudgetHedgehog]

But the 64-bit version is available for a reason (I suppose). It's probably better (when in doubt, higher numbers are better).

It is available because someone hacked an x64 version together and the people demanded it as it evidently could be done. Ever since it was released, it's been a nightmare for users and even more so for modders. I could be wrong, but the radial decoupler bug we have now was the result of Squad fixing the fact they were broken on the x64 release. It's really far from suitable for release and always has been.

Also, x64 < x86. x86 is higher, must be better, right?

[worir4]

Because my sig...

[cantab]

I would say if:

* You want to use tons of part packs

* You don't want to use any plugin mods - any mods that add or change game features and behaviour

* You don't want to play career mode

* You absolutely, 100% cannot run KSP on Linux

A pretty rare set of circumstances to be honest.

The Windows 64-bit version worked OK when it first came out, but it's gone very much downhill since then. IMHO .90 Win64 should not have been released at all.

[Jovzin]

I would say if:

* You want to use tons of part packs

* You don't want to use any plugin mods - any mods that add or change game features and behaviour

* You don't want to play career mode

* You absolutely, 100% cannot run KSP on Linux

A pretty rare set of circumstances to be honest.

The Windows 64-bit version worked OK when it first came out, but it's gone very much downhill since then. IMHO .90 Win64 should not have been released at all.

Exactly. 0.25 and win64 was great for me. No crashes , no errors, no bugs. It was great plasure to play.

Now 0.90 and win64 is a hell. Crashes all the time, bugs, errors.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Jovzin
typos