Huge RAM issue

[Oxygenbreather]

I'm around cycle 800 and my game keeps crashing. I love this game, but it just got unplayable that way. At some point it started to crash occasionally, then every few cycles, now I can't go through one cycle without it crashing at the morning save. The reason is IMO quite obviously RAM usage, whenever my system dings 8GB it or some sub process of it gets killed or fails to allocate or overflows stack whatever the detail is. Usually it crashes while trying to save.

I tried some emergency things, like killing lots of critters, removing debris as far as I can, removing pipes, clearing up regolith, nothing helps anymore, crashing periods get shorter and shorter.

So anything we can expect to be done about RAM usage of the game? Is there something I missed that would make a hugh difference?

I also already disabled anything from windows running in background that isn't absolutely necessary.

Since I searched and read a few topics when the original poster was about RAM, it's solely about RAM; I'm not talking about CPU or threads, or GPU. It's also likely not so much a memory leak, since it crashes already extremely soon. It's simply too much usage.

Why does the game use so much? IMO 8GB should be enough for a 2D game, no?

[Steve Raptor]

8GB is definitely too low for endgame.

I have 12GB and on my 1300 cycle base which covers a large portion of the asteroid, the game usually uses ~10GB of ram.

[6Havok9]

 

14 hours ago, Oxygenbreather said:

Snip

I have an old rig. Amd FX-6200 3,8 ghz cpu, Asrock 970 Extreme-3 motherboard, 8 GB Corsair Vengeance 1333 mhz RAM.

I've been able to reach cycle 1300+ with 35 dupes on multiple bases during early access, although in conditions that many would consider unplayable. Maybe I enjoy the "slideshow" effect and I've grown used to it. There were crashes, sometimes, but they were rare.

Since LU I've been playing almost exclusively in debug mode tinkering around, and I experience those cycle 1300+ conditions... at cycle 60/100, with 6 dupes. Automation failing or skipping ticks, teleporting dupes, frozen critters, powerpoint fps, all that cool stuff.

I don't think I've seen the game crash after LU. But after reading your post, I'm thinking that it's because I simply can't get far enough to experience it.

While it's a 2D game, it heavily strains your pc. It's a "physics simulation" after all.  It's not glittering fancy graphics that require power, it's the underlying monster that is the game itself eating away at your CPU and RAM, while your graphics card comfortably laughs in a corner saying "YOUR TURN NOW, B*****S!"

I'm upgrading my rig just for this game. Waiting for the delivery =|

 

[Aelfled]

About the only thing you can do is avoid revealing the fog of war, or buying more RAM. Do you have a laptop with it soldered to the motherboard or something?

[cpy]

It's not 2D game, it's 2D physics simulation with pressure and temperature simulation. Those kind of thing usually runs on supercomputers but they are multithreaded as hеll. They said they are working on another performance update, so fingers crossed!

I bet if they manage to lower memory usage a lot, it would speed up game a lot.

[Oxygenbreather]

6 hours ago, Aelfled said:

Do you have a laptop with it soldered to the motherboard or something?

Exactly. I'm not a huge gamer. This a laptop designed for work and being portable with just Intel graphics and the such. Until I hit the RAM limit it ran ONI just fine, albeit being passively cooled I discovered I could significantly improve speed by putting it on a moist towel for gaming

While I really love this game, I'm not going to buy new hardware for it. Usually I got kinda bored with most maps anyway once I started reaching 20k+ with rockets, but I really wanted to go for the escape achievement.

BTW: Calculating RAM usage by cell, 256 wide*384 high = 98,304 ~ 100.000 cells. So 7-8 GB means is 80 KB by cell. This are 10,000 64 Bit variables by cell? Even with all the layers and temperatures and density and all that, it sounds a bit much for me. Or do I estimate something wrong?

[Lifegrow]

<--- 32gb of Ram, game still runs like a fat man through treacle when you approach the end game (i.e. cycle 1k+, large base, cosmic biome opened, majority of asteroid cleared, etc etc).

There are many threads on the forums already detailing various different angles of attack as the OP mentioned, sadly none of them really seem to do bugger all in as much as a miracle cure, more that they all need to be implemented as a collective :

Pointless only tidying up, debris has little to no impact.

Pointless focusing on vacuuming the entire asteroid, marginal impact.

Pointless trying to stick with only a few dupes, you'll still lag end game.

Pointless micro managing your pathing, marginal impact.

If you incorporate all these small changes together though, you can experience a lengthier playthrough, but you have to be conscious of these pitfalls.

The only option for most players seems to be build small, have tiny bases, not explore the entirety of what the game has to offer, and then restart before you rip your own nipples off due to a severe case of  "FFS" (frequent freezes syndrome).

Sadly this is the game in it's current form. I'm sure the Klei folks are working on it - they mentioned a "dedicated performance team" on their last VOD (Yes, I watched - just so I knew if they mentioned performance changes or not!) although what exactly they're dedicated to doing currently i'm not sure. They're clearly not fans of lettuce or overlay lag - if the last hotfixes are anything to go by.

I'm hoping they're going to surprise the community with a mammoth overhaul of changes/fixes in an upcoming update - maybe having worked through the backlog of bugtracker issues dating back over the last couple of years, hopefully without introducing a plethora of new bugs in the process.

I can hope can't I....  

 

 

[melquiades]

I upgraded my system because of RAM, but somehow it got worst as of late. 16 GB are not enough now.

What worked for me was getting rid of all my evolved shinebugs, otherwise the game would crash constantly after a few minutes.

[Xaekai]

The engine seriously needs some multithreading love. It can't seem to make use of more than 4 CPUs at a time, and we live in the age where there are desktop processors that have 12 CPUs.

[Oozinator]

16GB and when you play a bit longer 80% are used..
Has nothing to do with ram, but i shortened lifespan of my cpu, thanks to ONI, because i digged into OC for it.
With i52500k running at 4,7 stable ONI is playable (apart of the save load time stutter !"$!)
Playing ONI would be expensive then.
When i can trust intel extreme tuning tool, power usage goes up from 95W (NO OC) to 220W (OC).
With 2k hours on the clock that makes a (small) difference..
ONI is the only game (for me), that needs such processing power.

 

[nakomaru]

If you disable virtual memory and don't crash with 8gb on an end game base I'd be surprised. I crashed with VM disabled at 16gb before. Now I use 32gb because of ONI.

There's really not much we can do to reduce memory req besides playing on smaller maps, less complex bases, or not exposing the map. And don't ever load twice. Whether ONI is currently perfectly optimized for memory usage is partly obvious and partly irrelevant. (It is probably a good avenue for future optimization though.)

[Oxygenbreather]

56 minutes ago, Xaekai said:

The engine seriously needs some multithreading love. It can't seem to make use of more than 4 CPUs at a time, and we live in the age where there are desktop processors that have 12 CPUs.

As I posted, please do not derail this onto CPU (as most thread I searched on this topic have before). The memory usage has nothing to do with CPUs or Multithreadedness. You could have a million CPUs multithreaded, and the game would still crash if it hits the system RAM limit. Multithreadedness would likely make RAM usage even worse, as you'd need allocate RAM for semaphores all over the place too. 

But thanks everybody commented, so to realize there is not much I can do about it. Except wait maybe having an update about it. Keeping it small... works if you get most of the vents I'd like near the start. 

Well maybe is there a realiable way to start with smaller worlds, where all the biomes of it's type and vents are still there? For the most part, my bases require only 1/4 of the map anyway.

[nakomaru]

I would change the map gen file for the asteroid you want to play on to a smaller width (if you change height much you won't get magma/space biomes), and then keep trying geoactive seeds and checking the geysers with debug until you find a map you're happy with. There's probably mods too.

Hmm, I think I'll do this for my next base too for performance.

[ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy]

I haven't played the game in a long while. Even though I want to, I am waiting for this to turn around.

What I don't get is how we got to this situation. We had relative good performance after the QoL updates. Even though we got new biomes and different asteroids, surely this shouldn't weight in on the generated world? The game world's size and the things it has to calculate and whatever remained relative the same.

[nakomaru]

I don't think the memory usage has changed particularly much since QoL.

On the CPU side, we got a new piping algorithm plus any undocumented performance changes.

[KittenIsAGeek]

5 hours ago, Oxygenbreather said:

Well maybe is there a realiable way to start with smaller worlds, where all the biomes of it's type and vents are still there? For the most part, my bases require only 1/4 of the map anyway.

In your game folder/OxygenNotIncluded_Data/StreamingAssets/worldgen is a file called "defaults.yaml".  If you edit that file, you'll find the following pair of values that control the size of your world:

SubWorldWidth controls how wide your world extends.  SubWorldHeight controls how tall.  Try adjusting these to:

• SubWorldWidth: 128
• SubWorldHeight: 128

There's a thread from a long while back where someone played with these values.  There are some maximums (which I forget), but the minimum is 64 I believe.  Anyway, the values also need to be divisible by 16 or strange things happen.

 

**Note: Make a back-up before you edit this file, so that you can start over if something goes wrong.

[Xaekai]

8 hours ago, Oxygenbreather said:

As I posted, please do not derail this onto CPU (as most thread I searched on this topic have before). The memory usage has nothing to do with CPUs or Multithreadedness. You could have a million CPUs multithreaded, and the game would still crash if it hits the system RAM limit.

I'm just saying, I play on my workstation-class machine with 48GB of RAM and the game still chugs because it can only use like 4 of my 12 CPUs. I couldn't imagine playing this game on a 8GB machine.

[Oxygenbreather]

@KittenIsAGeek Thank You! I'll try that.

On topic CPU/RAM, btw. if anybody cares, using less RAM by optimizing packing often improves performance as well, as L1/L2/L3 cache hits all become more likely.

[kingy10005]

I have yet to hit a performance wall but from what I can tell one CPU core seems to do a whole lot more then the rest on my I5 8600k 

Will check my ram didn't think this game would use as much as there posts are saying 

[kapoff]

Playing an 1800 cycles base with 8G RAM (I5 3500k) under Linux without major performance issue (22fps) .
The game never crash.

[ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy]

53 minutes ago, kapoff said:

Playing an 1800 cycles base with 8G RAM (I5 3500k) under Linux without major performance issue (22fps) .
The game never crash.

Could you give a bit more info? Like amount of dupes, playspeed, ramspeed?

22fps doesn't sound bad on x3 speed, but kinda bad on 1x.

[kapoff]

3 hours ago, ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy said:

Could you give a bit more info? Like amount of dupes, playspeed, ramspeed?

22fps doesn't sound bad on x3 speed, but kinda bad on 1x.

Yes sorry.
8 dupes
Playspeed x10 with a mod
Ram speed :

Quote

8GiB Mémoire Système
4GiB DIMM DDR3 Synchrone 1600 MHz (0,6 ns)

don't know if it's good but I can tell that this computer have 8 years old
Also My OS is an old Ubuntu 12.04

[Oxygenbreather]

On 9/11/2019 at 12:54 PM, kapoff said:

Playing an 1800 cycles base with 8G RAM (I5 3500k) under Linux without major performance issue (22fps) .
The game never crash.

Thank you! Didn't know ONI was available for Linux as well. I'm usually not much about "operating system doxoylogy" as they are all just tools for me. But switching made a hugh difference! (I'm mostly a Linux user anyway, and use Windows just for gaming).

It still crashes tough, just instead of about every circle, every 10-20 or so. I got 20 dupes tough.

And as I know this system better, I can say from dmesg in case of a crash, it is not like that the kernels out-of-memory killer went active. From the view of the kernel everything was fine all the time. So it may be that the garbage collector of ONI/Unity is crashing which likely kicks in when it sees it reaches system limit, or it's just usage of freed pointer (which makes a crash more likely the less memory is available, as compared to when there is a lot the freed RAM is more likely not to have been overwritten again). Or it's just a real plain and simple programming error.

Anyway the game is playable again and I can work on removing stuff, shortening paths, vacuuming things, the usuals.

[kapoff]

On 14/09/2019 at 6:47 AM, Oxygenbreather said:

Thank you! Didn't know ONI was available for Linux as well. I'm usually not much about "operating system doxoylogy" as they are all just tools for me. But switching made a hugh difference! (I'm mostly a Linux user anyway, and use Windows just for gaming).

It still crashes tough, just instead of about every circle, every 10-20 or so. I got 20 dupes tough.

And as I know this system better, I can say from dmesg in case of a crash, it is not like that the kernels out-of-memory killer went active. From the view of the kernel everything was fine all the time. So it may be that the garbage collector of ONI/Unity is crashing which likely kicks in when it sees it reaches system limit, or it's just usage of freed pointer (which makes a crash more likely the less memory is available, as compared to when there is a lot the freed RAM is more likely not to have been overwritten again). Or it's just a real plain and simple programming error.

Anyway the game is playable again and I can work on removing stuff, shortening paths, vacuuming things, the usuals.

Glad to read this. Didn't knew thas Unity could be really better under Linux.
 

[ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy]

On 11/9/2019 at 5:40 PM, kapoff said:

Yes sorry.
8 dupes
Playspeed x10 with a mod
Ram speed :

don't know if it's good but I can tell that this computer have 8 years old
Also My OS is an old Ubuntu 12.04

Yeah that's good, thanks a lot!

 

I am honestly flabbergasted you are able to get that kind of performance with that ram. So basically if we run a Linux OS it is all fine and dandy?

I was looking for an excuse to get a Linux install, so yay!