Nah. Your research is spot on. It’s a good method, performant but somewhat tricky to set up right.
I’ve found the answer in another forum post:
It’s hard to tell (for me) what would be more efficient - a multibody overlap or a physical hit. I’d say the latter would be faster but it might as well be in the ballpark of negligible difference. Things can be further optimised, too.
When it comes to HISM vs ISM - which one to choose would depend on how the levels are designed and the design of the tiles. HISMs come with their own indexing baggage which can make it cumbersome. But if your tiles are complex, there is a A LOT of them, and we do not need to see all of them all the time, HISMs will be worth it.
Here’s the setup just in case:
- material:
- the ISM:
- the pawn interaction:
Obviously, if you do not want / need physics or want to use an overlapping volume to do more funky stuff, multibody is the way to go. Good luck with the rest!