Plugins + Scripts Realistic Foreskin & Erection Simulation

[FCG]

Its definitely much more than you mention. Its not just "triggering orgasm" (it is e.g. in sync with configurable sequences, facial animations, throbbing, it uses fluids presets, precum, cum cloth etc.). The same is true for pubic hair: There is an auto hide routine which hides altfuta penis and pubic hair when under clothing, and Divining Rod is considerably improved compared to the old original. These are just a few examples... Its difficult to briefly describe all functionalities inside the UI because of space restrictions, but I try to keep it very stringent and clean.

I agree though that the idles are off topic - I might separate them sometime.

If you just need the basics, leave the ControlCenter away and use foreskin and/or erection plugins alone. I am not planning to remove other main functions in the future, and this suite (tje ControlCenter in particular) will strive to be a male one stop solution!

My bad, I didn't take a closer look at some of the features since I don't need them
Trying to be a one stop do-it-all solution instead of doing one thing and doing it well is the same fate some of the other plugins on this site suffered but it is what it is

Best of luck and fun with the plugin

 

[RunRudolf]

I raised the issue of CPU single-core performance because I couldn't determine whether it was a problem with the VAM program itself or with the plugins.

I tried with another scene of G&C (Office Seduction, I don't have the exact one you mention) which includes my plugin, both with the .77 and .103 versions and without it. I do not notice any relevant fps difference, its stable at around 130 fps, and GPU load is also stable at 95% with and without the plugins. Must be some particular effect you observe, very difficult to narrow down from here. I am sorry for not being able to help you!

 

[exax]

I tried with another scene of G&C (Office Seduction, I don't have the exact one you mention) which includes my plugin, both with the .77 and .103 versions and without it. I do not notice any relevant fps difference, its stable at around 130 fps, and GPU load is also stable at 95% with and without the plugins. Must be some particular effect you observe, very difficult to narrow down from here. I am sorry for not being able to help you!

Thank you for your help.
I reinstalled VAM, scenes, and dependencies, and found no issues.
After comparing, I discovered that the original "vammoan.22" plugin in the AddonPackages was a third-party modified version. Only when using this third-party version of vammoan alongside realistic-foreskin would the GPU utilization drop below 50%. Later, I tested this third-party vammoan plugin on other scenes and found similar issues in some cases.
My conclusion is that realistic-foreskin triggered a bug in the third-party modified vammoan. Now I decided to delete the third-party modified vammoan to solve the problem.

 

[RunRudolf]

Thank you for your help.
I reinstalled VAM, scenes, and dependencies, and found no issues.
After comparing, I discovered that the original "vammoan.22" plugin in the AddonPackages was a third-party modified version. Only when using this third-party version of vammoan alongside realistic-foreskin would the GPU utilization drop below 50%. Later, I tested this third-party vammoan plugin on other scenes and found similar issues in some cases.
My conclusion is that realistic-foreskin triggered a bug in the third-party modified vammoan. Now I decided to delete the third-party modified vammoan to solve the problem.

Thanks for your feedback! Thats interesting! Is this alternative VAMMoan publicly available? I would like to find out what creates this effect...

 

[I_NAMELESS_I]

It's kinda annoying that the lenght is limited to this ?

What annoys me is when i looked into the morph, the penis lenght is not even full and there are about 20% left in the slider, but ofc if i slide it to increase the lenght from here it will go back to the limited value from the plugin.

I remember you could make it much longer but after few updates it is limited to this.

 

[RunRudolf]

It's kinda annoying that the lenght is limited to this ?
View attachment 544348

What annoys me is when i looked into the morph, the penis lenght is not even full and there are about 20% left in the slider, but ofc if i slide it to increase the lenght from here it will go back to the limited value from the plugin.
View attachment 544349

I remember you could make it much longer but after few updates it is limited to this.

Hi, what do you mean by "limited to this"? You can make it as long as you want by entering any number in the morph slider. It's even stated in the help text. And there is no meaning to how full the morph slider is, that is just showing the initial value boundaries of the morph, which are not fixed. Does that help you?

 

[exax]

Thanks for your feedback! Thats interesting! Is this alternative VAMMoan publicly available? I would like to find out what creates this effect...

Hello, I made a mistake. I didn't realize that when I reinstalled, I failed to download all the full dependencies for the realistic-foreskin plugin, which caused the plugin to automatically close when loading, as shown in the figure. (In my previous multiple tests, only disabling the foreskin was enough to restore frame rate and GPU usage to normal.)

Later, I conducted further testing and found that version 100 works fine, while versions 101 and higher all reduce GPU usage. (I also tried the scene https://hub.virtamate.com/resources/shower-seduction.61495/, and when I updated the realistic-foreskin plugin to version 103, the same issue occurred.)

 

[RunRudolf]

Later, I conducted further testing and found that version 100 works fine, while versions 101 and higher all reduce GPU usage. (I also tried the scene https://hub.virtamate.com/resources/shower-seduction.61495/, and when I updated the realistic-foreskin plugin to version 103, the same issue occurred.)

Thanks for sharing your observations. I am not sure I fully understand your point, but I read that you still have the performance problem with version 101+ while there is no issue with version 100. In order to find the problem, I need to be able to reproduce the effect you describe, but I can't.

I think that the drop in GPU usage you see depends on how VaM works. Physics are done on one single CPU core and need to be done before rencering. Physics/CPU are usually the limiting factor (bottleneck) in VaM scenes.
I you add my plugin, physics calculation times typically go up a little bit, because some additional physics are added. If physics / CPU usage is limiting, increasing physics time will reduce GPU usage and fps, because the number of frames ready to be rendered will be reduced.

How much GPU load decreases when adding my plugin (or any other one increasing physics times) depends on you CPU - in my case, with an AMD Ryzen 7800x3D, there is no obeservable limitation of CPU load at all and a single male scene with or without my plugins runs at 400+ fps with 95% GPU load.

There might however be other influences, such as enabling/disabling 'Soft Body Physics', changing 'Physics Rate' and 'Physics Update Cap'. You might experiment with different settings there.

 

[exax]

Thanks for sharing your observations. I am not sure I fully understand your point, but I read that you still have the performance problem with version 101+ while there is no issue with version 100. In order to find the problem, I need to be able to reproduce the effect you describe, but I can't.

I think that the drop in GPU usage you see depends on how VaM works. Physics are done on one single CPU core and need to be done before rencering. Physics/CPU are usually the limiting factor (bottleneck) in VaM scenes.
I you add my plugin, physics calculation times typically go up a little bit, because some additional physics are added. If physics / CPU usage is limiting, increasing physics time will reduce GPU usage and fps, because the number of frames ready to be rendered will be reduced.

How much GPU load decreases when adding my plugin (or any other one increasing physics times) depends on you CPU - in my case, with an AMD Ryzen 7800x3D, there is no obeservable limitation of CPU load at all and a single male scene with or without my plugins runs at 400+ fps with 95% GPU load.

There might however be other influences, such as enabling/disabling 'Soft Body Physics', changing 'Physics Rate' and 'Physics Update Cap'. You might experiment with different settings there.


View attachment 544839

View attachment 544840

The first screenshot shows version 100 with the plugin loaded. The second one shows version 101 with the plugin loaded.

When version 101 turns off soft body physics, the GPU usage is 98%. Does this mean version 101 requires more physics calculations than version 100? Could my CPU's performance be insufficient, causing a drop in frame rate?

 

[RunRudolf]

[GALLERY=][/GALLERY]
View attachment 544847View attachment 544848View attachment 544849

The first screenshot shows version 100 with the plugin loaded. The second one shows version 101 with the plugin loaded.

When version 101 turns off soft body physics, the GPU usage is 98%. Does this mean version 101 requires more physics calculations than version 100? Could my CPU's performance be insufficient, causing a drop in frame rate?

Basically there have not been any significant changes in terms of physics between 100 and 101. Only things changes have been added is breathing. Could you test again witt breathing deactivated please?

And yes, this clearly looks like a typical CPU limitation. So dont bother about the GPU, its not the problem. Its neither the problem that your CPU is too weak, but rather the huge difference in physics time between 100 and 101, almost +100%. Thats the real issue and should not be.

And could you tell me if there are any other (person or session) plugins active?

 

[exax]

Basically there have not been any significant changes in terms of physics between 100 and 101. Only things changes have been added is breathing. Could you test again witt breathing deactivated please?

And yes, this clearly looks like a typical CPU limitation. So dont bother about the GPU, its not the problem. Its neither the problem that your CPU is too weak, but rather the huge difference in physics time between 100 and 101, almost +100%. Thats the real issue and should not be.

And could you tell me if there are any other (person or session) plugins active?

MiniScene 5 - Scenes -

Here's another mini scene I'm using to build a story scene with. Users are free to build upon it also. Have fun. AcidBubbles.Timeline.287 By: AcidBubbles License: CC BY-SA Link...

hub.virtamate.com

I tested with this scene, which has only four dependencies—I downloaded only the scene file and the Timeline.287 plugin.
For this test, I only added the RunRudolf_RealisticForeskin.cslist to the man atom.

The first screenshot shows the scene without the RealisticForeskin plugin; the second is version 100; the third is the first few seconds after adding version 101; the fourth is 5 seconds after adding version 101 (maybe you can wait a bit longer). Could you test it using this workflow?

 

[RunRudolf]

MiniScene 5 - Scenes -

Here's another mini scene I'm using to build a story scene with. Users are free to build upon it also. Have fun. AcidBubbles.Timeline.287 By: AcidBubbles License: CC BY-SA Link...

hub.virtamate.com

I tested with this scene, which has only four dependencies—I downloaded only the scene file and the Timeline.287 plugin.
For this test, I only added the RunRudolf_RealisticForeskin.cslist to the man atom.
View attachment 544898View attachment 544899View attachment 544900View attachment 544901
The first screenshot shows the scene without the RealisticForeskin plugin; the second is version 100; the third is the first few seconds after adding version 101; the fourth is 5 seconds after adding version 101 (maybe you can wait a bit longer). Could you test it using this workflow?

I also have a certain increase of physics time after a while with version 103, increasing from around 0.36 ms (average after 5 sec) to 0.9 ms (after like 20 sec or so). I will compare 100 vs. 103 of foreskin and see if I can find something that stacks up or so! I get back to you.

 

[RunRudolf]

I also have a certain increase of physics time after a while with version 103, increasing from around 0.36 ms (average after 5 sec) to 0.9 ms (after like 20 sec or so). I will compare 100 vs. 103 of foreskin and see if I can find something that stacks up or so! I get back to you.

Found the part which made it slow and will be changing this for the next update. Thanks for the hint and being precise and helpful!

BTW it was just a .GetStorableIDs().FirstOrDefault() and a .GetStorableByID(pluginID10).GetBoolParamValue() function which was called every frame when inside orifice for a certain time (triggering start of squirting of the girl). That's why it only occurred after a few seconds.

With the code changes, the physics time will remain very close to version 100.

 

[RunRudolf]

RunRudolf updated Realistic Foreskin & Erection Simulation with a new update entry:

Bugfixes

View attachment 545615
Credits: ; Girl left: Hermine by Vecterror, girl right Ellie by JackyCracky, boy Tyler by PetaZwerga, 3 point light setup by MeshedVR, poses by figgybear (male) and klphgz (females)

Bugfixes

• RealisticErection: Corrected exaggerated nipple erection after consecutive saving/loading of erect state appearances. The base nipple erection value is now fixed to 0.25, the UI slider will determine the amount added at erect state...

Read the rest of this update entry...