[1.6.1] RealPlume - Stock [v1.3.1 - 1/14/19] - Better Late than Never Update

[SilverlightPony]

5 hours ago, Nhawks17 said:

Make sure you have all the dependencies and everything is installed correctly. I've tested it with SVE and Scatterer and haven't noticed any issues.

The only dependencies listed are Module Manager and SmokeScreen, which (along with RealPlume) are all installed via CKAN.  Like I said, I even tried removing and reinstalling them.

After making that post, I noticed that I was getting some rather small particle effects on the SPS engine for my Munar service module (KW Rocketry Service Module Propulsion System), but again, no noticeable particles from the lander's engine (LV-900 Beagle).  I originally noticed the lack of particles on my main heavy lifter, which uses five RE-D7 Bollards and four Mk55 Thuds; this did not change with the reinstall.

[Nhawks17]

8 hours ago, SilverlightPony said:

The only dependencies listed are Module Manager and SmokeScreen, which (along with RealPlume) are all installed via CKAN.  Like I said, I even tried removing and reinstalling them.

After making that post, I noticed that I was getting some rather small particle effects on the SPS engine for my Munar service module (KW Rocketry Service Module Propulsion System), but again, no noticeable particles from the lander's engine (LV-900 Beagle).  I originally noticed the lack of particles on my main heavy lifter, which uses five RE-D7 Bollards and four Mk55 Thuds; this did not change with the reinstall.

Try installing it manually and not through CKAN please.

[SilverlightPony]

2 hours ago, Nhawks17 said:

Try installing it manually and not through CKAN please.

What's the latest version that should work with 1.1.2?  CKAN is saying "2v10.5.1" (which I'm guessing is 0.10.5 in the changelog), but the changelog doesn't mention specific KSP versions until 0.11 for KSP 1.2.

[Nhawks17]

1 hour ago, SilverlightPony said:

What's the latest version that should work with 1.1.2?  CKAN is saying "2v10.5.1" (which I'm guessing is 0.10.5 in the changelog), but the changelog doesn't mention specific KSP versions until 0.11 for KSP 1.2.

All versions of the configs will work with 1.1.2 but the dependencies are what really matter which I can't help you with. You'll need to make sure the dependencies included in any version are designed to work with KSP 1.1.2

[SilverlightPony]

I fixed it.  Had to roll back SmokeScreen to 2.6.17; apparently 2.6.18 isn't fully compatible with 1.1.2.

[Kerbonaut257]

Thank you so much for the fast update! I'm so happy that almost all my favorite mods have been updated already!

[MR L A]

Regarding the fps drop you mention at the start - is this usually experienced as a drop in performance throughout engine use? e.g 10fps less whenever plume fx is applied? Or is it altitude specific like what I seem to be experiencing? which is a small drop in fps but nothing major up to around 25km where I then experience a drop to a constant 12.5 fps. This then jumps back up at around 50/60km.

I'll be dropping the particle count regardless, but I as just wondering if this was the "usual" experience

Thanks!

[Nhawks17]

21 minutes ago, MR L A said:

Regarding the fps drop you mention at the start - is this usually experienced as a drop in performance throughout engine use? e.g 10fps less whenever plume fx is applied? Or is it altitude specific like what I seem to be experiencing? which is a small drop in fps but nothing major up to around 25km where I then experience a drop to a constant 12.5 fps. This then jumps back up at around 50/60km.

I'll be dropping the particle count regardless, but I as just wondering if this was the "usual" experience

Thanks!

Well the particles never go over the defined limit so I would guess that the fps loss would be constant but that is just a guess.... 

[MR L A]

18 hours ago, Nhawks17 said:

Well the particles never go over the defined limit so I would guess that the fps loss would be constant but that is just a guess.... 

huh, interesting. 

How does real plume interact with the stock heating effects? I'll run some experiments to test, but my hypothesis is that the fps drop may be induced by simultaneous use of plume fx and re-entry particle fx. I'll let you know either way. Not expecting you to fix this btw, I guess its an issue with smokescreen? I'll get back to you anyway

Thanks for the mod btw. I absolutely love it

[Nhawks17]

17 minutes ago, MR L A said:

huh, interesting. 

How does real plume interact with the stock heating effects? I'll run some experiments to test, but my hypothesis is that the fps drop may be induced by simultaneous use of plume fx and re-entry particle fx. I'll let you know either way. Not expecting you to fix this btw, I guess its an issue with smokescreen? I'll get back to you anyway

Thanks for the mod btw. I absolutely love it

RealPlume doesn't interact with it at all... It's technically SmokeScreen doing all the stuff... RealPlume and the configs are pushed through that system to make the effects so it's likely an issue with that unless I'm utterly mistaken. 

[Calvin_Maclure]

7 minutes ago, Nhawks17 said:

RealPlume doesn't interact with it at all... It's technically SmokeScreen doing all the stuff... RealPlume and the configs are pushed through that system to make the effects so it's likely an issue with that unless I'm utterly mistaken. 

So if you want to change the appearance of the exhaust off of one of the engines, that means you play around with RealPlume and not SmokeScreen. Correct?

[Nhawks17]

1 hour ago, Calvin_Maclure said:

So if you want to change the appearance of the exhaust off of one of the engines, that means you play around with RealPlume and not SmokeScreen. Correct?

Correct! The files you'd want to mess with would be under the RealPlume folder.

[Yoshidude]

Is there a way to "blacklist" engines that dont work correctly with RealPlume temporarily? A hybrid SRB from SETI keeps creating a plume even though the engine flamed out.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Yoshidude

[Nhawks17]

21 hours ago, Yoshidude said:

Is there a way to "blacklist" engines that dont work correctly with RealPlume temporarily? A hybrid SRB from SETI keeps creating a plume even though the engine flamed out.

You can go into the folder and delete the config for the engine.

[fourfa]

I'm running a new career in 1.2 with the Porkjet part overhauls, with a cfg to replace the originals with the Porkjet models.  The replacement Mk1 command pod has been giving me hell - erratically saying "hatch is obstructed, cannot EVA."  There are zero parts on the exterior or anything that could legitimately interfere.  Once this starts, there's nothing I can do in the game to get around it.  Quit, restart - no change.

If I quit, remove RealPlume, RealPlumeStock, and SmokeScreen, restart and problem is solved.  I'm no expert bug-tester - is there something I can do to help identify and isolate this?  I've certainly got other mods installed (mostly the typical visual mods) but none of them have fixed the EVA problem when removed, it was a long boring process of elimination to find RP having an effect.

[Farix]

1 hour ago, fourfa said:

I'm running a new career in 1.2 with the Porkjet part overhauls, with a cfg to replace the originals with the Porkjet models.  The replacement Mk1 command pod has been giving me hell - erratically saying "hatch is obstructed, cannot EVA."  There are zero parts on the exterior or anything that could legitimately interfere.  Once this starts, there's nothing I can do in the game to get around it.  Quit, restart - no change.

If I quit, remove RealPlume, RealPlumeStock, and SmokeScreen, restart and problem is solved.  I'm no expert bug-tester - is there something I can do to help identify and isolate this?  I've certainly got other mods installed (mostly the typical visual mods) but none of them have fixed the EVA problem when removed, it was a long boring process of elimination to find RP having an effect.

I don't think RealPlume, RealPlumeStock, or SmokeScreen even touches the command pods in any way. But delete \RealPlume-Stock\PartOverhauls to see if the problems continues.

[Kinzerfest]

Is there a way to remove the vacuum spreading effect? I don't like it and it causes a lot of lag when I have a lot of multi-nozzle engines (Like the RAPIER)

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

On 10/16/2016 at 0:49 PM, Nhawks17 said:

[Mach effects on exhaust particles is] likely something with SmokeScreen as there is really no code from RealPlume itself... I'll look into it more when I get a chance.

I recall seeing @NecroBones mention in his SpaceY and MRS changelogs that he had to re-export some engine effects for 1.2.  Maybe RealPlume (the "parent" with the actual effects in it) needs to do something similar?

[Vegemeister]

11 hours ago, Kinzerfest said:

Is there a way to remove the vacuum spreading effect? I don't like it and it causes a lot of lag when I have a lot of multi-nozzle engines (Like the RAPIER)

Don't use RealPlume?  The vacuum spreading effect is the entire point.

[SilverlightPony]

13 hours ago, Kinzerfest said:

Is there a way to remove the vacuum spreading effect? I don't like it and it causes a lot of lag when I have a lot of multi-nozzle engines (Like the RAPIER)

 

1 hour ago, Vegemeister said:

Don't use RealPlume?  The vacuum spreading effect is the entire point.

This, basically.  If you want better-looking plumes without the spreading, try HotRockets.

[NecroBones]

On 10/22/2016 at 11:03 AM, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

I recall seeing @NecroBones mention in his SpaceY and MRS changelogs that he had to re-export some engine effects for 1.2.  Maybe RealPlume (the "parent" with the actual effects in it) needs to do something similar?

 

I suspect that there's something we need to do, like putting the particle emitters on a certain layer or give it a certain tag (and then re-export),  but I don't know what the fix is. It was brought up in one of my mod threads, but I don't know what needs to be done. This change on KSP's side will affect all custom particle emitters.

 

[Nhawks17]

2 hours ago, NecroBones said:

 

I suspect that there's something we need to do, like putting the particle emitters on a certain layer or give it a certain tag (and then re-export),  but I don't know what the fix is. It was brought up in one of my mod threads, but I don't know what needs to be done. This change on KSP's side will affect all custom particle emitters.

 

Well damn.... I guess I'll have to try to look into that. Paging @DerpyFirework for help because I'm gonna need it  

[DerpyFirework]

2 minutes ago, Nhawks17 said:

Well damn.... I guess I'll have to try to look into that. Paging @DerpyFirework for help because I'm gonna need it  

I'm afraid this is something that the core RealPlume people will have to fix. From my understanding, the effect models (the .mu files in the RealPlume folder) need recompiling to include the ignore aerofx setting (the layer or tag).

So we've just go to wait for an update in the core RealPlume models, other than that, I don't think there's a way around it for now.

[Nhawks17]

Just now, DerpyFirework said:

I'm afraid this is something that the core RealPlume people will have to fix. From my understanding, the effect models (the .mu files in the RealPlume folder) need recompiling to include the ignore aerofx setting (the layer or tag).

So we've just go to wait for an update in the core RealPlume models, other than that, I don't think there's a way around it for now.

Ahh okay... Well hopefully when RO updates we will get one... I will in the meantime try my best to see if I can figure out how to recompile them.

[DerpyFirework]

Just now, Nhawks17 said:

Ahh okay... Well hopefully when RO updates we will get one... I will in the meantime try my best to see if I can figure out how to recompile them.

Just found this in the SmokeScreen thread:

On 20/10/2016 at 11:57 PM, sarbian said:

It s most likely a layer problem. The effect may use the wrong one. I could add a settings to force it...

It may just get solved by the next SmokeScreen update.

And just as an extra thought, could this layer issue be related to the other odd behaviours that people have reported? I'm no expert at any of this but that sounds reasonable.