Reentry Effects and Plasma

[Confused Scientist]

Frankly, the main reason I support this feature being an option is because I disabled stock Mach & plasma effects in the game menu, because I thought it was kind of ugly and it lags spaceplanes so much. As a mod, this feature gives me great plasma effects without the normal lag. (Note: I play with many mods, mostly environmental enhancement mods, and high-part-count spacecraft on a 2016 HP computer with full graphics settings, so lag is more or less subjective depending on how you play and what you play it on.)

[AlamoVampire]

@CaptainTrebor The mod reentry particle effects turns the code on. But id still like someone @SQUAD to comment on this.

@Confused Scientist The effects are already STOCK, the mod enables the code that is already IN the game, its just squad has it off for some reason.

op 19:04:30

Edited August 14, 2017 by AlamoVampire
Added comment at 19:08:30

[AlamoVampire]

I was launching a quick repair mission to fix something I forgot during the build of the other mission, and well, my over built launcher showed me something.

It was said that the plasma effect shown by the mod in my very first post in this thread which is nothing more than a mod that turns on the code Squad themselves has placed into the game some years back is nothing more <the plasma that is> than an extension of the smoke plume you see during launch. Well, as I said, my over build launcher was screaming through the atmosphere fast enough during launch that I saw the plasma of reentry AND the plume being left by the engines  themselves. I zoomed out to see the entire trail of both the smoke and plasma. They are the SAME length. The plasma is above the smoke, but, they are BOTH visible. have a gander:

original post time 23:32:30

[AlamoVampire]

Im still hoping a dev comments on this as it does need addressing....

op 23:38:30

[Hotaru]

I suspect one of two things is going on here. Either A. there's a very good reason for leaving these effects turned off (like, if you turn them on on one particular OS, your computer catches fire) or B. it's such a small feature that the devs have simply forgotten about it (not least considering practically the entire dev team has been replaced since it was originally implemented and left disabled).

I'd be curious to know which is the case.

Edited August 17, 2017 by Hotaru

[AlamoVampire]

@Hotaru I forget what dev said it last year but the plasma effect is an extension of the smoke seen during launch. The picture i have further up the page confirms it. Im sure they still know its there as they go thru the code each patch, each update so I doubt they dont see it. Id also wager with all the performance upgrades its even more trivial to flick the preverbal switch to on and not burn any OS's down. But until someone like @TriggerAu or @Arsonide or any other dev @SQUAD weigh in we can only guess. Im hoping they do turn it on as they did include the code so long ago.

op: 02:11:30 

[qzgy]

If they do turn it on, I thin it would be best if it was a menu option, I do know this has been said, just reiterating.

[AlamoVampire]

@qzgy Why should it be a menu option? The smoke plume we get during launch is not a menu option, and my posts that tell of the devs stating the fact that the plasma effect is an extension of said effect and the picture providing direct visual confirmation of this as the smoke trail cuts off at the exact length of the plasma trail proves such claims, so, I as again why should one (plasma) be an option when the other (smoke) is not? And if you say it is a performance issue, I repudiate your assertion on the following criterion: 

1. Reentry typically has the fewest parts.

2. Plasma is a confirmed extension of the non optional smoke trail at launch.

    2.a which typically has the MOST parts

3. KSP 1.3 is a much better running game with major performance upgrades over all.

original post 18:13:30

[AlamoVampire]

Still wishing, hoping for some official word, as this would be nice to have turned on, would reduce all our mod packs by one at least.

op 23:17:30

Edited August 19, 2017 by AlamoVampire

[Jarin]

35 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

Still wishing, hoping for some official word, as this would be nice to have turned on, would reduce all our mod packs by one at least.

op 23:17:30

You're probably wasting your time, unfortunately. They don't speak with us lowly mortals much these days.

[AlamoVampire]

@Jarin this is a valid issue, should be addressed. To say something, one way or the other. the silence is deafening.

op 00:09:30

Edited August 19, 2017 by AlamoVampire

[Jarin]

2 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

@Jarin this is a valid issue, should be addressed. To say something, one way or the other. the silence is deafening.

op 00:09:30

I was going to say "welcome to the forums" but you've been here long enough to know that deafening silence is the norm. 

[AlamoVampire]

@Jarin But WHY wont they say anything anymore? Why the silence? The facts that I know:

1. Its coded into the game as a stock feature, but is turned off.

2. They (one of the devs, forget which one and cant find that post, possibly lost during the swap to the current setup) stated the reentry effect is an extension of the rocket plume seen during launch.

3. Fact 2 is visually and categorically shown true in the picture supplied of an over built launcher of mine showing both the exhaust trail and plasma trail cutting off at the same distance from the vessel.

4. Was also stated by a dev that it was default off for performance concerns, a legit concern on older versions of both KSP and unity, but, in the more than a year since even this threads initiation the game has seen various performance upgrades as well as an engine upgrade AND stock stable 64 bit support. 

Given this the absolute silence is bothersome and disheartening. I see this mod in use on videos from well known players like scott manley and hottips and wonder why @SQUAD or the devs seem to refuse to say something. 

op 03:29:30

[The_Rocketeer]

2 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

But WHY wont they say anything anymore? Why the silence?

 

Because answering questions from the fans would be a full time job for a much larger team, and would have a negligible effect (if any) on their key directive, which is to produce, test, release and support the game. Chatting about hypotheticals to make the fans feel loved would be a monumental waste of professional time. You're right to draw attention to things you'd like to see take a higher priority in development, but it really isn't justified to criticise the dev team for not talking about these things with you right now just because you want them to.

I think this feature looks good, tho I'm more impressed by the distance shots (red streaks) than the close-ups (little puffs of pale gold). I'm also concerned about tanking performance on large or complex ships. Not every descent is just a pod on a chute. SSTOs, surface and atmospheric vehicles, bases - these are a bit more involved than that.

[AlamoVampire]

@The_Rocketeer Thing is those effects are basically a recolored launch smoke plume, they said as much before. Ive never had performance issues with the smoke OR plasma even on massive 400+ part vessels on my slightly better than a potato machine. 

op 14:02:30

[qzgy]

Well try an 800 part thing. Even on my computer which is well better than a toaster, it still doesn't play well. Turning down graphics, also with this kind of plume, helps, even if just a bit.

[AlamoVampire]

@qzgy I can understand 800 parts is a drag, but, again, I point out something critical: The Re-Entry Particle Effect / Plasma <which ever term you prefer> is nothing more than a recolored rocket launch exhaust plume which is triggered at a specific velocity with in an atmosphere. This fact cannot be stressed enough along with the supporting evidence of the image of my over built launcher showing both the launch exhaust plume trail AND the atmospheric heating Plasma or Re-Entry Particle Effect that terminate at the exact same distance from the aft end of the vessel and the fact a developer even confirmed this some while back <pre-forum move, so again, this may be lost to history> that it is nothing more than an extension of the effect we see during launch.

So, with this said, I posit to you this: It is not the plume <re-entry OR launch> that is causing problems but the over all graphical load from all graphics on screen as well as the 800+ parts demanding individual physics calculations AND the garbage collection issues that unity is sadly so well known for. I posit this theorem as a reasonable guess <possibly> from myself to you, with the caveat that I am not a programmer and am basing said guess on what I have read from the developers and various players discussing this type of thing, so, result shall and likely will vary  

op 23:00:30

Edited August 20, 2017 by AlamoVampire

[The_Rocketeer]

Turning off launch plume smoke helps with slowdown during launch, period. Whether that's because something else is eating up all the system resources is moot, because there's nothing we can do about that. What we can do is build rockets with fewer, bigger engines, which reduces the amount of smoke.

During re-entry, presumably any part that gets hot enough will generate re-entry plasma smoke. This is a significant difference between a launch plume and this feature. If every part during launch produced a smoke plume, you might find the slowdown affecting your game too.

[AlamoVampire]

@The_Rocketeer While ive yet to see any of my 200+ part launchers spontaneously fly apart with BOTH smoke and plasma going, i HAVE had 200+ part vessels go buckshotting their way BACK down and suddenly give me between 10-30 plasma trails with no more lag than at any other point during mission between T-0 and RUD on entry.... Then again I run 1 visual mod and all it does is turn the plasma as coded by squad on. The rest of my mods are part or sound (chatterer on sound) related. (MJ, proc fairing, sy, sye, plan base, kis/kas, cacteye) and DPAI and KAC so thats fwiw. I just honestly hope @SQUAD will turn it on toggled or no, on is on to me.

op 05:46:30

[The_Rocketeer]

8 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

I just honestly hope [SQUAD] will turn it on toggled or no, on is on to me.

Then why would you want it to be stock instead of mod dependent? On, it would appear, is not on.

[AlamoVampire]

54 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Then why would you want it to be stock instead of mod dependent? On, it would appear, is not on.

Dude really? 

1. Squad hard coded this into the game ages ago. Defaulted off.

2. Because its default off it requires a mod to fix this issue.

3. I would like @SQUAD to turn this from default off to default on(menu toggle or not i do NOT care) so all of us who want this as stock (me included) can reduce the number of mods we need to fix or pretty up the game.

4. "On is on" means regardless if i need to flip a check box and forget said box is a thing or if its a non option hard coded default on, its officially turned on by squad and no longer a mod. 

Op 15:24:30

[The_Rocketeer]

On 20/08/2017 at 9:25 PM, AlamoVampire said:

3. I would like [SQUAD] to turn this from default off to default on(menu toggle or not i do NOT care) so all of us who want this as stock (me included) can reduce the number of mods we need to fix or pretty up the game.

4. "On is on" means regardless if i need to flip a check box and forget said box is a thing or if its a non option hard coded default on, its officially turned on by squad and no longer a mod.

(skipped 1 and 2 cos yeh, I know)

3. So you want Squad to change the game to fix a problem you already fixed for yourself even tho it may have undesirable effects for an unknown number of others, even tho those others might prefer otherwise.

4. You literally already did this. The mod made changes you could have made yourself by editing a file or two. [Edit: this mod appears to be cleverer than was previously implied] What you're asking for is a button in an options menu that you'll use once and forget about. Same thing.

Edited August 22, 2017 by The_Rocketeer

[AlamoVampire]

@The_Rocketeer Dude I hope you are not being serious and are yanking my chain.

You are failing to grasp what I am saying so allow me to be blunt.

Re-entry effects are hard coded by squad. We seem to agree on this. Where you are falling away from seeing my point is this: a mod that turns on something that squad really should turn on already. The mentality of "well a mod does it so whats the deal" is frankly a lazy argument. The fact players NEED a mod to turn on a bit of code that seemingly is being ignored by squad is gallingly sad. 

Further my rigs slightly better than a potato and even 1 fewer mod would help but my desire aside lets look at others with even more potato rigs who could/would love this effect but cant run a visual mod, would you condemn them to not having these effects because they cant run what should be turned on by squad?  

Op 12:58:30

[The_Rocketeer]

3 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

Re-entry effects are hard coded by squad. We seem to agree on this. Where you are falling away from seeing my point is this: a mod that turns on something that squad really should turn on already. The mentality of "well a mod does it so whats the deal" is frankly a lazy argument. The fact players NEED a mod to turn on a bit of code that seemingly is being ignored by squad is gallingly sad. 

Further my rigs slightly better than a potato and even 1 fewer mod would help but my desire aside lets look at others with even more potato rigs who could/would love this effect but cant run a visual mod, would you condemn them to not having these effects because they cant run what should be turned on by squad?

@AlamoVampire

I am entirely serious, but don't let that upset you.

1. Re-entry effects are coded by Squad, and also disabled by Squad. I suspect there is a reason for this that goes beyond the belief that Squad are simply too lazy or too mean to do anything about it. Your assertion that this is "something that squad really should turn on already" is unfounded.
    
2. The mentality of "well a mod does it so what's the deal" might be a lazy argument, but that doesn't mean it's a bad one. The Mod has it fixed, therefore Squad can focus their time on something more important, like testing and bugfixing the console port, or more inspired, like the upcoming Making History expansion, or more anticipated, like fully supported multiplayer or a higher-res skybox.
    
3. Players don't need a mod to turn on a bit of code, but if they want it the mod it exists, and if they don't want it or don't care... well.
    
4. Whether the feature is enabled by a mod or by the stock game, it'll still use resources and files that otherwise would not be used. Having few mods in general might correlate to better performance, but that doesn't mean that making a mod stock means it will necessarily run better.
    
5. I can't really argue with your point about (console) players who can't use mods, but frankly they have bigger problems that they would be better off Squad devoting time to at the moment.

For what it's worth, I think this is a great mod, but I don't see any reason why it need be anything more.
 

[AlamoVampire]

@The_Rocketeer How long would it take @SQUAD or any dev to turn the ALREADY existing code from off to on? A few minutes? Faster than a coffee break. It absolutely ABSOLUTELY would reduce drag on a players resources to have it enabled and no longer a mod. Especially it would give players on baked potatos a chance to get a visual enhancement that the "its a mod, good enough" mentalities prohibits them from getting. 

This why I wish someone from the devs would say something. The silence is not helping us.

Op 13:41:30

Edited August 21, 2017 by AlamoVampire