Hello,
We’ve started experimenting with Geometry collections to help simulate more complex destruction for our game, as its one of the core pillars we’re building around. From our initial testing, it seems like a robust solution for our team to start building with. However, there are some concerns with missing features in Geometry Collections that would be great to understand if they there but we’re unaware, or if missing but planned for the future, or are just missing from the roadmap.
The big one is Hinge, Socket and Spring constraints. Is it possible to set these up so if part of the hierarchy breaks, the physics element can swing from other remaining connections? For example, if I were to have a bridge made of beams. If I break a connection on one side of the beam, we’d want to see the beam simulate physics with the constraints left with the other connection. This is a make-or-break issue for us using geometry collections unfortunately as we need to have a working prototype of complex destructions made rapidly.
The second feature is “health” of the hierarchy. Is it possible to define the “health” of a speciation of the simulation to allow it to take X amount of damage before it breaks? Then moving on from this, can we also define other attributes like “heat” or “Integrity”? Essentially, we want to have different weapons cause different types of damage that are more or less effective against certain geometry collection elements.
Our third and final question is regarding data flow. Is it possible using dataflow to script the behaviour of how a geometry collection fractures, its stress points, and setting up more complex hierarchies of simulation?
Sorry if the terminology for my question with geometry collections isn’t great, still learning the system and what it can do to support us.
Thank you,
-Jon L