[1.0.x]Destruction Effects (flames and smoke on joint breaks)

[linuxgurugamer]

On 9/10/2016 at 0:27 AM, gomker said:

Update on that, I got the Chute to attach on Eject, but clicking it for deploy is pretty much impossible, for some reason KIS is not fully "creating" the chute. If I am on the ladder still I can click, but mid flight its hit or miss on if you can get the pop up to show. 

I would like to go back to creating the chute like mod did from scratch previously but that is a bit of coding. 

Look at EVA Parachutes and Ejection Seats

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

36 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Look at EVA Parachutes and Ejection Seats

Thats a bit out of date now, with the combining of my chutes into your mod, as we were aiming for something similar but you beat us to it

 

[linuxgurugamer]

Lol

[panzer1b]

1 hour ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

Doubt it,  It's been decided that while i love my FX they may not be for everyone, to address this a gui option is being considered to allow switching between the original and anything i or others may make in the future

@panzer1b I'm no FX wizard for sure and if you'd like to get something together as you described we can give a test  , i have no clue regarding animated texture strips, as the original used, mine are purely emitter based,  Yeah so get something together and if it works we can work it in as an option. Have to say though i think mine look very respectable regardless of the viewing distance and with 10 ship  and aircraft scenarios not having any real noticeable effect on frame rate i think it's all good

I think thats a great idea to have it user configurable.  Doesnt even need to be GUI if you dont feel like taking the time to make a proper one, just have it read from a cfg file where the user can specify parameters.  Also, the same user can add their own textures to the correct folder allowing one to use custom sprites (as it is right now the mod uses unity based effects which are not easy to manipulate by the average user).  And all parameters should be user customizeable if only for the ability to tweak the frequencies and length of trail to increase/decrease looks/performance as needed for ones machine.

If you can PM me a working version of the mod for 1.2 ill start messing around with it and see what i can do about the effects (my coding knowledge about ends at being able to take source code, mess with it, and then compile, and im still stumped at what changed from 1.1 to 1.2 in terms of code so my attempts at porting the old stuff bahamuto had on here isnt going well).  Ill do my best to make the trail as low lag and as high quality as i can (and again, great idea with the customizeability so users can choose what trails they prefer, since how good a particular effect looks is basically an opinion).

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

Just now, panzer1b said:

 

The coding you don't need to worry about as we have a man for that and he's very good at it. So just worry about the pretties. 

All kinds of things changed, and then even more with 1.2 but not as much.  This is one bit of code i can with my feeble abilities almost comprehend   

And yes it's very much a subjective thing, I know .  The real snag is that my effects in fact even the ones shipped as original don't work well on aircraft, subjectively of course, mine look fantastic on blazing ships and vehicles but there is no real middle ground, getting the balance for one throws it way out for the other, as my primary interest is with the effect as per ships, the output is  biased heavily to the upper levels of emission, and this makes it all a bit ott for most aircraft, fun but well over the top

[panzer1b]

On 10/16/2016 at 7:33 PM, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

The coding you don't need to worry about as we have a man for that and he's very good at it. So just worry about the pretties. 

All kinds of things changed, and then even more with 1.2 but not as much.  This is one bit of code i can with my feeble abilities almost comprehend   

And yes it's very much a subjective thing, I know .  The real snag is that my effects in fact even the ones shipped as original don't work well on aircraft, subjectively of course, mine look fantastic on blazing ships and vehicles but there is no real middle ground, getting the balance for one throws it way out for the other, as my primary interest is with the effect as per ships, the output is  biased heavily to the upper levels of emission, and this makes it all a bit ott for most aircraft, fun but well over the top

Ive been playing a bit of IL2 recently and i noticed how that game has a different effect when landed and when flying.  Would it be possible to have two separate effects, one for landed or swimming objects, and one for anything that is airborne?  That would give us the best of both worlds since we can have thicker ground fire and more aircraft styled smoke and flames for airborne stuff.  Perhaps have an altitude toggle, liek say switch effect types if you go below 500m or something (to compensate for stuff like tanks flung into the air after being hit by powerful kinetic impactors).

[Guest]

So how is stuff going on here?

[panzer1b]

I think making this mod work right is gonna take ALOT more work then it seems, so many bugs...

If you quickload/scene change it instantly lights everything on fire (cool but not very realistic).

Also, we really need a sort of cap on total particle emmisions at a given time, this made the game slow down to a literal crawl, yeah its 1500 parts in one spot, but still normally i can actually interact reasonably, not so much when everything bursts into flames).

At least the few times the mod works without any hicups or bugs, it produces some of the most incredible looking explosions to date!  That screenshot actually looks like something out of star wars...

var velocity = Part?.GetComponent<Rigidbody>().velocity ?? Rb.velocity (this thing will not compile, red underline...)

Now if only i can figure out hwo to compile it myself i could actually see if i can help with teh code.  I keep getting compile errors with the visual studio in the gaplessemitter class.  If you know how to fix that @SpannerMonkey(smce), then i could actually start mucking around in the code (i may not be a pro but i know enough to modify other people's mods, provided they actually compile on my machine that is)...

Edited October 24, 2016 by panzer1b

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

@panzer1b

Hey this is last commit i did, not touched it for a while now , feel free ,,,

https://github.com/SpannerMonkey/DestructionEffects

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, panzer1b said:

 

If you quickload/scene change it instantly lights everything on fire (cool but not very realistic).

Also, we really need a sort of cap on total particle emmisions at a given time, this made the game slow down to a literal crawl, yeah its 1500 parts in one spot, but still normally i can actually interact reasonably, not so much when everything bursts into flames).

 

Well @jrodriguez said that he would add a system where if a part was 50% overheated it would start on fire so that might be the culprit.

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

Just now, Murican_Jeb said:

Well @jrodriguez said that he would add a system where if a part was 50% overheated it would start on fire so that might be the culprit.

Theres a lot of undesirable effects appearing since 1.2,  joints are seemingly broken and remade all over the place depending on the vessels load state,  I even had one in the SPH today, the effects are only generated ( as i understand it) on joint break, so every joint break triggers a blaze as @panzer1b mentioned this can be down right annoying or amusing,  vessels coming into phys range seem to be constructed on the spot and joints made or broken gush flame

A little gif of today, quite a few mods working to make this all happen but does have a nice blaze going, for ref the more joints you have the more flames you get,  ship below, 327 parts = 327 potential fires

[panzer1b]

1 hour ago, Murican_Jeb said:

Well @jrodriguez said that he would add a system where if a part was 50% overheated it would start on fire so that might be the culprit.

While that is a good idea, it only works with BDA and not so much with stock combat .  Given that stock missiles rarely if ever impart heat to the target, im not sure if thats going to work well for me.  Im probably going to end up seeing what can be done to the mod to actually get it working.  While i understand the BDA focus of it (since most people would end up using it with BDA), i still would love this to function in stock.  Im going to have to experiment with how the game does joint breaking, im pretty sure the autostruts and vessel rebuilding is the culprit causing these phantom loading fires.  Gotta look into the concept of joint overloading, i know the game gives you a very specific message in the F3 menu that tells you a joint has overloaded.  It may also be possible to make a part being destroyed entirely ignite anything it was attached to as well somehow, like say every part within a certain radius of the destroyed part will ignite temporarily.  Still, nomatter how its done, i think we need to have 2 versions eventually, one for BDA that uses the 50% overheat method, and another for stock players that uses the on joint overload or on part completely destroyed by impact logic...

[Guest]

@panzer1b

What I meant by this

2 hours ago, Murican_Jeb said:

Well @jrodriguez said that he would add a system where if a part was 50% overheated it would start on fire so that might be the culprit.

Is that not only would it have that but it would also still  activate on joint break

[jrodriguez]

@Murican_Jeb I'm committed to do it, but I didn't say when .

7 hours ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

Theres a lot of undesirable effects appearing since 1.2,  joints are seemingly broken and remade all over the place depending on the vessels load state,  I even had one in the SPH today, the effects are only generated ( as i understand it) on joint break, so every joint break triggers a blaze as @panzer1b mentioned this can be down right annoying or amusing,  vessels coming into phys range seem to be constructed on the spot and joints made or broken gush flame

A little gif of today, quite a few mods working to make this all happen but does have a nice blaze going, for ref the more joints you have the more flames you get,  ship below, 327 parts = 327 potential fires

I'm thinking that maybe we can use the new parameter "breakingForce" of the jointBreak event to decide whether or not we should trigger the effect. Maybe the value is 0 or negative when the vessel is rebuild?

[panzer1b]

8 hours ago, jrodriguez said:

I'm thinking that maybe we can use the new parameter "breakingForce" of the jointBreak event to decide whether or not we should trigger the effect. Maybe the value is 0 or negative when the vessel is rebuild?

Thats a very good idea.  We can have fire trigger when a joint break event exceeds the breakingForce parameter.  I cant be certain, but the way its worded i assume that the breakingforce parameter is only triggered if the joint "breaks" and not rebuilds itself (might need to have a threshold so that very light forces on rebuild dont accidentally trigger it if there is still a breakingforce present on vessel rebuild). 

As for the idea of heat based tirggering, i think that is ALOT more complex then it seems.  First of all there are plenty of ways to get a part's heat tolerance above 50% or some threshold (reentry, close to sun, ect), and second of all i dont know of any particular way to easily tell whether it was heated by BDA fire or heated by other effects that should not induce fires. 

Also, i have to suggest pulling as many of the relevant parameters into a cfg so that people can edit the frequency, lifespan, start and end size of the particle systems without having to manually compile the mod after editing params.  Not sure how its done with 1.2 but back when i did some coding i actually did create a cfg file for one mod so i knew how it was done.  If you are too busy i can try to do this myself and give you a fork of the code (provided it even works )...

[Guest]

So how are things going? Is everyone okay here?

So did you guys drop the mod? It's been about 2 weeks since anyone ever posted a comment and I'm getting concerned 

Edited November 5, 2016 by Murican_Jeb

[Guest]

Anyone?

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

18 minutes ago, Murican_Jeb said:

Anyone?

Hey, technical hitches abound, as you can imagine with so many changes throughout the game and  I've a stack of FX to rework to U5spec, and right now this mod is not high up on the priority list,  BDA is currently at the top,  that said the version here https://github.com/SpannerMonkey/DestructionEffects   , does work in 1.2.1 if you want to try it, but it'll quickly become apparent that things with FX are not quite right.  So for my part it's not forgotten, it just has to form an orderly queue by the door and it'll get done..

Cheers

Spoiler

 

Edited November 5, 2016 by SpannerMonkey(smce)

[Guest]

Alright thanks. I hope this gets fixed soon

[Guest]

Bug report: You know when the FX starts there is a light? Well when the FX stops, the light is still on.

I just wanted to drop in a bug report incase that helps, but other than this issue, I got the mod happily working in 1.2.1.

And it's not lagging at all. 

[jrodriguez]

Hi all,

The new release for KSP 1.2.1 is available here 

https://github.com/jrodrigv/DestructionEffects/releases/tag/v1.2.0

Now, you have two destruction animations available. The new and default one created by @SpannerMonkey(smce) and the one created by @BahamutoD

A settings.cfg file has been added:

DESettings
{
	LegacyEffect = False
}

Change the value to True if want to switch from the new effect to the old one.

Enjoy!

Edited November 17, 2016 by jrodriguez

[Guest]

[Guest]

TACTICAL BUG REPORT

INCOMING!!!!

Ok seriously though.

So I mananged to blow off a chunk of the wing of an Fw-190 and the effects started. When viewed from the F4U it looks completely normal:

 

 

But when viewed from the Fw-190, the flame appears to be stationary:

Note: Engines were off because both planes ran out of fuel (They have a very small amount of liquid fuel. Probaly not enough to escort a bomber. But their engines are mighty powerful so thats fine I guess.)

[jrodriguez]

@Murican_Jeb I'm pretty sure this issue is related with the one we also have in BDA.

https://github.com/PapaJoesSoup/BDArmory/issues/74

@SpannerMonkey(smce) knows more about this than me, but I think the root cause is that all animations/fx were done with Unity 4.x and they don't work properly in Unity 5 4

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

Hi re the odd FX ,  I believe it's primarily because the U4 FX currently used are actually deprecated and some of the functionality is lost when using them on U5 based KSP, I'm working on some updated fx, it's taking a little longer than i expected as  the values I'd used previously produce a completely different result than in unity 4. I'll be sure to push them up as soon as I'm happy with the overall appearance.