Krzeszny

@severedsolo Sure, moving a satellite is easy but if there's no fuel (which is always), this type of contract is so bad that I don't understand - what was your intention in making them expire in 90 days and in making them so common?

I have a problem. I often get stock exploration contracts (for example, Explore Eve) and when I accept one, I get the cash for advancing but the contract disappears from active contracts in a few hours or days. Usually, another one reappears. Stock exploration contracts don't have dealines, so I can practicaly get infinite cash.

I see, thanks. Experimenting with these values is too complicated. If there was a way to edit the configs in the VAB to see the outcome live, without restarting KSP, I'd improve your configs.

I've found the reason (and accidentally I've learnt to write configs). Your mod's ReStockPlus config's second section has practically the same metallic values as the first section. Because of this, even though I moved those nosecones and hemispheres to the second section, they remained too metallic. Also, what do the Detail and Shininess properties do? You've only explained what Metal and Smoothness did.

I get it now. The problems seen in the previous screenshot mostly come from the fact that not all parts are included in your configs. Look: These nosecones aren't in the configs (I checked the stock, restock and restock+ config). I think that parts which aren't included have all texture properties maxed out. If it wasn't for that, your pre-made configs would be OK.

I debugged it! And it's so simple! Crew Light Relit depends on ClickThroughBlocker, even though it's not listed as a dependency. If you open the console with Crew Light installed but CTB not installed, you'll see why. After adding ClickThroughBlocker, Crew Light Relit only lowers my framerate by 1% and holding left Alt doesn't make it any worse. Just add CTB to this thread's OP and to CKAN dependencies. Easy fix

I benchmarked both the CKAN and the beta versions. Here are the findings: Both versions lowered my framerate by 8.7% on the launchpad and between 6.3% and 7% in orbit. Tested for around half an hour because I had some problems with background programs. Note - both versions were tested with the engines turned off. Launchpad tests were consistent and the orbit tests only differed by 1 frame per second (hence 6.3% for the stable version and 7% for the beta, which could be a measurement error). Testing with engines turned on is too inconsistent without a proper in-game benchmark utility... someone should make a mod for benchmarking!

If you're interested in how the 2 KJR version compare with each other: KJR Next lowers my framerate by 3% KJR Continued lowers my framerate by 5% Tested with: pre-built FAR Shuttle 'Montauk', 172 parts.

I did a benchmark and it turns out that when both RealPlume and SmokeScreen are installed, my framerate is lowered by 8.7% (both max and avg.) with the engines off, both on the launchpad and in orbit. I did this benchmark 4 or 5 times in total and the results were extremely consistent. Note - when SmokeScreen is installed without RealPlume or vice versa, the framerate isn't lowered. It has to do with how configs interact with this plugin. Just saying.

I can't help you any more than by pointing out that beyond any doubt, when RealPlume is installed, the framerate drops by 8.5% - ALWAYS. As it can in fact be caused by SmokeScreen rather than RealPlume's configs (even though SSFX without configs doesn't affect the framerate), I'll report it in SSFX's thread. By the way, you can benchmark it yourself (or anyone else can). If you can't make use of this report, fine. 9% framerate is a small price to pay for salvation better plumes Thanks for maintaining the mod.

HebaruSan told me that it's not possible. The only thing you can do is create a 'core' version of your mod, and separate mods that install the configs. Then you can use that config module function. For example, MagPie core, MagPie less shiny config, MagPie more shiny config (or just MagPie more shiny / Mag Pie less shiny, which conflict with each other - way more simple, without the need to make 3 mods). I'll see what I can do by modifying those configs later but now I'm still testing performance of other mods. For now, here's a stock (with mods) example why I want to modify the configs: Shinyness is very inconsistent. Some parts are chrome, some parts are too metallic (which makes them too dark), some are OK. In this example (it's a stock pre-made Orbiter 1-5 IIRC), the fuselage parts type C (used on the boosters, between the nose cones and engines) look OK but the fuel tanks are too dark. Many parts such as nose cones are chrome, even though they should look like fuel tanks (see - parts list). Is it normal?

I know, after all, this mod adds a lot of models. What concerns me though, is that Kerbin Side Remastered doubles the FPS losses, even though it doesn't add nearly as much as KSCE + its dependencies.

What I meant to say is that my framerate didn't drop with SmokeScreen installed without RP, and current tests have shown that RP without SmokeScreen (removed folder) also doesn't drop the framerate. My framerate drops with RealPlume and SmokeScreen installed at the same time. I did some more benchmarks today and the conclusion is that RealPlume+SmokeScreen lower the framerate in all scenarios, with the engines off. On the launchpad, max and average framerates dropped by 8.73% (94 with RP/SSFX, 103 without), engines off. Tested 3 times. In orbit (attained using the cheats menu), max and average framerate dropped by... 8.69% (105 with, 115 without), engines off. Tested 2 times. As you can see, the results are extremely consistent. Do you have any idea why RealPlume constantly lowers the framerate? It must be calculating something in the background.

By the way, I forgot to update my benchmark with more-consistent results. Both KSCEx and KSR drop 13% of the total FPS. It adds up to (over) 26%

RealPlume (not SmokeScreenFX - I've tested them separately and SSFX doesn't affect framerate) reduces my average framerate consistently by 8.5% without any engines running. In my benchmark it was reduced from 142 FPS to 130, hence 8.5%. I know it's not a lot, but I still wanted to report it. Benchmark conditions: stock Dynawing sitting on the launchpad, not touching any controls, waiting for the framerate to stabilise for a minute, 2 benchmarks with the mod installed and uninstalled. In other words, RealPlume drops FPS when the engines aren't even running. I wonder why. (This is my ongoing performance benchmark for popular mods.) (Specs: i5-6600k at 4.4 Ghz, GTX 970, Windows 10, 16 GB RAM, SSD, other mods are installed but they have to be and the test was consistent - I get too many frames per second without mods and KSP limits my framerate to my monitor's refresh rate, so I have to lower it below 144.)

There's no rush.

I just wanted to report that this mod makes me lose 11% framerate even if my rocket is sitting on the launchpad, connected to launch clamps. The benchmark was consistent. Besides that, it's a nice mod (specs - Intel i5 running at 4.4 GHz, GTX 970, Windows 10, 16 GB RAM, SSD)

Unfortunately, I still don't understand. I don't see where the CFG's are divided into 2 sections and why there is a more- and less-metallic section. If one is more-metallic and the other is less-metallic, are you asking me to modify both? It's all greek to me. How can I know which sections/parts are mapped, in order to only edit the right sections? As I said, I'm not a modder or a coder. Editing code without a tutorial or the knowledge about it is like witchcraft. Here's how to create configs for your mods (like the configs for Scatterer, PlanetShine, Real Plume etc.): https://github.com/HebaruSan/CKAN/wiki/Adding-a-mod-to-the-CKAN#separate-modules-for-config-files

I understand. I mostly wanted to warn potential users about possible 30% framerate losses. Specs: Intel i5-6600k OC'd to 4.4 GHz, Nvidia GTX 970 not OC'd, an SSD, Windows 10, 16 GB RAM

@linuxgurugamer I found 2 performance problems. Firstly, my framerate drops from 127 to 98 (consistently) when I install this mod and run a kind of benchmark (on the launchpad, at daytime, not touching anything), and when I hold left Alt, it drops from 98 to 88. I tested this at least 3 times, getting consistent results. Even when I turn the lights on and off, and they're visibly off (because the mod doesn't keep them on when I turn them on and off), the framerate remains the same. In per cents, the mod itself lowers my framerate on the launchpad by 23% and holding Alt lowers it even further by 10%. Yes, only this mod causes the Alt issue. @Avera9eJoe please read your post again, slowly.

No. It's because my runway isn't level 3, so the runways on its sides aren't connected. Also, as I reported on Kerbin Side Remastered's thread yesterday, while KSC Extended takes away only less than 5 FPS (maybe 2), Kerbin Side Remastered takes away 10 FPS on top of that, measured on the launchpad (default camera angle). Maybe you know why? KSPRC city lights, on the other hand, take another 10% FPS, even when it's daytime, on the launchpad. I know KSPRC isn't yours but the KSPRC Renaissance Compilation thread has been inactive for 2 years.

As an example, in ReStockConfig.cfg, there are 10 instances of KSP_MODEL_SHADER and 1 instance of KSP_TEXTURE_SHADER and they're not just at the bottom. I'm not a modder and I don't know what's the difference between model and texture shaders and which one to edit (or all of them?). I just wanted to make all parts less metallic at the same time without guessing what to edit. Also, there's this in the OP: What does it mean? What two sections? I was hoping you included more-metallic cfgs and less-metallic cfgs to choose from. CKAN has the option to choose configs for a mod on installation.

I use the CKAN version.

When I add this mod to KSC Extended, my FPS lowers by 10: from 64 FPS to 54 FPS. I've tested this multiple times and this mod is really somewhat resource-heavy. Is there a way to fix it? Based on my tests, KSC Extended "eats" less than 5 FPS (EDIT: 13% of the total framerate) without Kerbin Side, which eats additional 10 (EDIT: also 13% FPS). I probably should have asked about this in the KSC Extended thread.

How to choose the less- or more-metallic config? I installed it with CKAN and I can't even find those configs in GameData.