Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Angular damp inside Area is far too strong #39059

Closed
Garmelon opened this issue May 26, 2020 · 5 comments · Fixed by #39085
Closed

Angular damp inside Area is far too strong #39059

Garmelon opened this issue May 26, 2020 · 5 comments · Fixed by #39085

Comments

@Garmelon
Copy link
Contributor

Garmelon commented May 26, 2020

Godot version:
3.2.1-stable (b0eca58, self-compiled)
Also happens in the latest version on the 3.2.2 branch (757d8b5)

OS/device including version:
Arch linux

Issue description:

Expected behaviour:
A RigidBody inside an Area with default settings and spatial override set to Replace behaves the same as a RigidBody outside of the Area, if the project physics settings have not been changed.

Actual behaviour:
The Area seems to apply very high actual angular damp even though it is set to the same value as the project physics settings (0.1).

Steps to reproduce:

  1. Create a new project with a 3D scene
  2. Add a floor StaticBody, a camera and maybe some lights
  3. Add an Area and give it a collision shape. Set its spatial override to Replace
  4. Add RigidBodys about to tip over inside and outside of the Area
  5. Run the scene

Minimal reproduction project:
bug_area_angular_damp.zip

Demo gif:
0001-0193

@madmiraal
Copy link
Contributor

Only happens with Bullet physics. Godot physics is fine.

@akien-mga akien-mga added this to the 4.0 milestone May 27, 2020
@AndreaCatania
Copy link
Contributor

This is already fixed in 4.0 by this PR: #37314
Can we back port that change?

@akien-mga
Copy link
Member

It requires updating bullet to a non-stable version, I'm not sure it would be a good idea for 3.2.x.
Might be better to document the bug then.

@madmiraal
Copy link
Contributor

I've created a 3.2 backport of #37314: #39084. However, this issue still remains.

@Garmelon
Copy link
Contributor Author

Well, that was quick. Thanks for the fix

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants