seedlingattempt/godot
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Improve documentation related to physics collision shapes

Browse Source 
- Document using convex decomposition in the editor.
- Mention that "trimesh" is synonymous with a concave collision shape.
- Add performance hints for each collision shape.
This commit is contained in:
Hugo Locurcio
2022-03-02 01:37:19 +01:00
parent 62765fb7ca
commit a30e5805af
19 changed files with 59 additions and 39 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

7
doc/classes/ConcavePolygonShape2D.xml
View File

@ -1,11 +1,12 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<class name="ConcavePolygonShape2D" inherits="Shape2D" version="4.0" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../class.xsd">
<brief_description>
Concave polygon 2D shape resource for physics.
Concave polygon shape resource for 2D physics.
</brief_description>
<description>
Concave polygon 2D shape resource for physics. It is made out of segments and is optimal for complex polygonal concave collisions. However, it is not advised to use for [RigidDynamicBody2D] nodes. A CollisionPolygon2D in convex decomposition mode (solids) or several convex objects are advised for that instead. Otherwise, a concave polygon 2D shape is better for static collisions.
The main difference between a [ConvexPolygonShape2D] and a [ConcavePolygonShape2D] is that a concave polygon assumes it is concave and uses a more complex method of collision detection, and a convex one forces itself to be convex in order to speed up collision detection.
2D concave polygon shape to be added as a [i]direct[/i] child of a [PhysicsBody2D] or [Area2D] using a [CollisionShape2D] node. It is made out of segments and is optimal for complex polygonal concave collisions. However, it is not advised to use for [RigidDynamicBody2D] nodes. A CollisionPolygon2D in convex decomposition mode (solids) or several convex objects are advised for that instead. Otherwise, a concave polygon 2D shape is better for static collisions.
The main difference between a [ConvexPolygonShape2D] and a [ConcavePolygonShape2D] is that a concave polygon assumes it is concave and uses a more complex method of collision detection, and a convex one forces itself to be convex to speed up collision detection.
[b]Performance:[/b] Due to its complexity, [ConcavePolygonShape2D] is the slowest collision shape to check collisions against. Its use should generally be limited to level geometry. For convex geometry, using [ConvexPolygonShape2D] will perform better. For dynamic physics bodies that need concave collision, several [ConvexPolygonShape2D]s can be used to represent its collision by using convex decomposition; see [ConvexPolygonShape2D]'s documentation for instructions. However, consider using primitive collision shapes such as [CircleShape2D] or [RectangleShape2D] first.
</description>
<tutorials>
</tutorials>