>>14897
I like how retarded the asset loading scheme is in that it loads everything on startup, keeps it in memory, then loads everything again. It needs roughly ~1.5-2 times as much RAM as there is stuff in the GameData folder, and unless you use thrice-abandoned third-party plugins to work around everything by turning textures into potatoes, then you can easily have memory usages of 3-6GB with just a few mod packs.
>get more RAM!
That'd be nice but the 32-bit build does have memory limits, around 3.1-3.5GB depending on engine overhead, the types of textures in mod packs, and the current phase of the moon. Then it crashes. It often crashes on startup.
>use the 64-bit build!
That'd be nice if it actually worked. They quietly dropped support for it about a version after they introduced it, and it wreaks havoc on most plugin mods.
>use fewer mod packs!
I'm not one to want 5000 parts. Back when I gave a shit about the game I usually just deleted most of the stock stuff and the fuel tanks in favour of Procedural Parts. Mods past that were to attempt to fix the physics, make space stations interesting, add scanning or contracts to the game, make the game not look like a potato, and generally add stuff that Squad promised (and quietly dropped) two years ago.
>oh yeah, you try doing this!
Oh, I've done so. I'm an astrophysics major who's worked on NASA-collaborated projects before (like the High Altitude Student Platform) with a summer job at the uni's observatory. I've coded the same physics and aerodynamics simulations in languages far harsher and less forgiving than anything game programmers use. I even made a few parts and a plugin for my own personal use in the pre-0.18 days. That's why KSP hurts to look at.
The forumites and all the Squad fans would have stopped 3 paragraphs ago and called me entitled or an idiot. KSP is just wasted potential and it breaks my heart to see it turn out like it has.