I have been struggling getting physics constraints to be truly locked in their locked axis, I am using a few different constraint types but even a fully locked constraint is springy/wobbly. Is there a special set of options that need to be set to make this work? Is there some other method that can lock two (or more) meshes together that behaves like this (but not parenting)?
Edit: For more context, I am building a modular vehicle building game where the components are all attached to each other via locked constraints. I originally tried parenting instead but ran into issues when it came to the more advanced interactions that I am trying to allow. Everything works great but the rigid constraints are just a little too springy.
If you are adding constraints in BP i’m not sure. inside a PHAT asset you can change the X,Y,Z Tensor scale which affects how wobbly stuff is…
Could you elaborate on that a bit more? I haven’t used a PHAT asset but it looks like it is a editor only functionality and only works with skeletal assets?
You can alter it by code too. But I do think it applies to skeletal meshes.
checking this, I don’t see a similar option.
So, probably, the only other solution would be to enable physics sub stepping with high number to increase the simulation accuracy.
that, maybe combined with an angular and linear motor to keep things in place…
Increasing the sub-stepping didn’t help much, neither did making the constraint a very powerful positional/angular motor.
Today I’m jumping into C++ to play around with Weld, which I doubt will get me anywhere but at least I can learn more about the physics engine.
Please if anyone has any tips at all, please let me know, if I can’t figure this out then my game idea won’t work.
My suggestion is to pick apart the physx implementation.
something is definitely wrong with it even in skeletal assets or there would be no need to add tensor scale values.
the problem is figuring out what is wrong…