Jared, Thank you!!! No more searching all over the place trying to figure how get these dumb things working.
That’s an interesting idea about volumes with line traces. Originally, I had thought of spawning actors in place of the particles. But, I believe that line traces would work much better and be easier on the cpu. Using this method, I’d be guaranteed the collision would be accurate. I could spawn random invisible line traces above the player and mix that with the visuals of rain. If the trace hit any object I could easily create events and the trace would be killed. If the trace hit the player, I could easily create an event to increase the variable storing the player’s dampness level. When the player built their structures, I wouldn’t have to worry about how they designed it. Ceilings would easily block the line traces.
However, my concern is the rain visuals. I can’t use either Niagara or Cascade as both are unreliable with particles dying. Yet, I need some way to portray a rain effect. What complicates this is the fact players can build their own structures. This means they can build windows and look out the window. Therefore, if its raining and the player is inside they need to be able to see the rain outside. LIkewise, I can’t create predefined areas where the rain will be. In the future I plan on adding procedural generation for both structures and terrain. So, the rain needs to be able to interact with a dynamic world.
Since I’d be using ray traces for collision and all I need is for my rain to just fall and die. I doubt I’d need physics. That seems like that would be extra overhead I don’t need. Unless there is another use you were thinking of that would assist me in my situation?
Capsu1, Thanks for the link. I checked it out. Yet when I checked out its comments section there were a lot of people complaining that the rain collision wasn’t working properly. So, I’m thinking Jared is correct in his assumption that Niagara and Cascade collision particles are unreliable.