Properly calculate lifetime_split for particles #73313
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes: #50825
Supersedes: #55382
While evaluating #55382 I realized that the problem lies elsewhere which is why #55382 was causing additional artifacts
This PR adjusts the calculating of
lifetime_splitby adding one to it and then taking the modulo of the result with the amount of particles. It is difficult to say why this change is needed. I think it is because the nature of the particles means that the first particle emitted is always particle 1 rather than particle 0. But It is difficult to track particles individually.Because I am uncertain about the reasoning for the fix, I think this would be better merged after 4.0 and then cherrypicked for 4.0.1
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
I also tested with particle trails enabled but the before and after is not so obvious there