I mean a dogfight between 10 70part airplanes.įollowing may influence performance: parts with excessive polygon count, part count in ship (doh), part joints when physical simulation is active, open docking ports, lighting on parts, volumetric clouds, additional conditional logic, suboptimally scaled texturesĮxpensive on RAM: extra textures, sounds, any extra content within Gamedata There comes a point where you have to balance what is possible inside the game and what is possible outside the game. Does it have to be 700 parts? Can you ditch something that's not mission-critical? Or can you assemble it in orbit and do three launches instead of one? Perhaps an even better solution to the problem would be an addition of mods like extra-planetary launchpads that allow you to build crafts on other planets (launching from the Mun would take far fewer resources than launching from Kerbin for example and maybe you can ditch an entire stage or two). Instead, a better way to achieve your goals while minimizing the performance hit would be to build whatever it is you're building in a smarter way. ![]() There are options you can turn off (like terrain scatters already mentioned) and some "optimization" mods (like mods that replace stock textures with lower res versions etc etc), but I think in this case you'll find that KSP itself just cant handle that big a craft without sweating. Part of the problem is also the way KSP is built and unfortunately in your case I don't think anything is going to help you get 700 parts into orbit smoothly. 1 in-game second for every 2+ real-world seconds).Ĭhanging the physics delta thingy up does which one? And down? FAR and AJE slow down ksp by maybe 7-14 FPS. There is also a setting called "Max Physics Delta-Time per Frame" which you can adjust to get more FPS for less physics accuracy or better accuracy for time moving slower than realtime (i.e. Your least expensive option to improve performance will always be to reduce part count and reduce programs/processes running in the background on your system. ![]() Think somewhere in the ballpark of around 10-15 times as much ($200+ for i7 processor and motherboard if you can reuse everything else) on the low end and it goes up from there for better performance/newer hardware. Upgrading your desktop to a better processor is not in the $20 range, though. In the last few versions of KSP the physics for separate vessels should be handled by separate processing threads, so an Intel i7 (4 cores hyper-threading to virtual 8 cores) or one of the newer 6+ core offerings from a Intel or AMD could potentially make a difference in handling the separate vessels, but I can't say what kind of performance impact those mods might have.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |