KSP Performance

[Speedj2]

just trying to get a better idea on what i should realistically expect in terms of performance in this game based on other peoples experiences with similar tier hardware. It seems like every update the game gets slower and slower, to a point now where the game is actually beginning to lose its appeal. I have 16GB of RAM, an RX 570 GPU, and an FX-6300 6-core CPU with a minor OC at 3.7GHz. I dont really use a ton of mods, and for the most part, they are the same mods I've been using since 1.1 or 1.2 when i had significantly better performance on a significantly weaker system, and a couple of them even since beta 0.9. they are Kerbal engineer, mechjeb, kerbal construction time, TAC life support, kerbal alarm clock, KIS, KAS, and the various required mods to support those mods like mod manager, background resources, etc. (also everything is up to date).

now, i realize the FX series processors arent exactly the best out there, but in the beta, i built a more than 700 part probe mothership to jool while using a significantly weaker system (fx-4100, 8GB RAM, gt 240 GPU) and had no trouble with lag or frame drops. now i cant seem to get above 20fps with a relatively simple 150 part space station. the thing that bugs me the most though, is that it seems almost like the game isnt even trying. my gpu usage never seems to go over 9% and none of my 6 cores rise over 60% with my overall utilization averaging around 40%. the system is very cool and definitely not being throttled and I also have plenty of headroom on RAM, with the game apparently only using 4GB and overall system usage being around 7GB (out of 16GB).

I'd like to know if other people with similar hardware are getting similar results, whether its vanilla or modded, and if anyone is able to run these mods (or vanilla even) with larger builds without so much trouble, i'd like to know what your system specs are. thanks everyone.

[RoofCat]

1. KSP is not meant for 700 parts. By design. It is sandbox and thus sort of unlimited - you can make 1000 parts if you wish. But it has reasonable target size and performance like any other product on market - not just games. You can carry 20kg. Can you carry 100kg just as fine?
No contract in KSP requires you to build ships as big. Does that ring a bell? Keep your ships around 200..300 parts and you should be fine.

2. You can max out game performance using CPU with best single core performance.
I don't care whether do you love and die for amd or intel. It's just how it is with chained physics on Unity engine in KSP in particular. OC that best CPU if you want a bit more. I'm not a fan of OC. Wastes a lot of electricity to heat for almost neglectable, often ridiculous performance increase and adds ton of noise. A waste in costs and electricity bill reducing lifetime of the parts along the way and annoying you for the sake off virtual d. size numbers. Whatever, pick your poison if that's your thing.

3. KSP doesn't care much about GPU. Haven't tested, but I suspect it runs just fine on integrated one with most current CPU. Not a lot of particle effects nor textures to process in stock.

[bigfoot3.1415926]

I have similar computer specs 16GB of Ram, R7 360 with 2GB of VRAM, and a 4300 Quad-Core. And I use pretty much those same mods. I haven't really noticed any FPS issues although I'm still relatively early in my career. I haven't mad a Mun landing or anything yet. Just been putting Satellites in orbit and rescuing stranded Astronauts in LKO, so my biggest ship is only about 100 parts . I do notice after a couple hours it'll start stuttering because of the memory leak (I still play 1.5.1 because I don't want to mess up the mods). 1.6 supposedly fixed the memory leak but have no first hand knowledge.