I think this is intended since the part was deleted on the client and the network owner of the assembly is still the server since your character was not close enough. If the part was deleted on the server though, it would wake.
Due to how network ownership works, you won’t be able to set the player as the owner due to the API only working on the server. So the server still sees the the assembly is welded to an anchored part.
Studio behavior has changed a lot. It now simulates both client and server separately.
The reason the wall isn’t falling is because you are deleting the brick client-side. (Notice the blue border on your screen.) Physics glitch out when stuff is changed only client-side, such as when deleting bricks.
Switch over to the server-side and delete the brick from there, then the wall will fall down.
Network ownership is present in local tests though.
Well it solves exploit related concerns preventing exploiters from teleporting unanchored parts around etc.
When a client deletes a part, it doesn’t replicate server-wide. In this case, the server still has authority over the physics of the assembly, so it doesn’t just fall. When a player touches the assembly or gets close enough, the network ownership is transferred to the client, but this is not replicated server-wide since the changes were made locally.
I have not enountered any disagreements between the client and server, I handle most of these stuff on the server anyway. But discrepancies may arise if the client was an exploiter or the replication was not handled properly.
You can’t set network ownership from the client though, so it would most likely be handled by the server.
If you modify an assembly at all via a non-physics action (such as deleting via the studio interface, or moving / modifying it with a script), the assembly automatically becomes server-owned until the server eventually decides to hand it back up to a client after some delay.
So, TL;DR: If you delete one of the parts on the server that forces it to be server owned as part of the deletion.
I was thinking about this more and it seems to me that deleting parts locally is in general just a bad idea.
I can imagine a 2 player scenario where player 1 deletes this part and is standing on the fallen wall section while the server thinks the wall is unchanged. Player 2 would see player 1 floating in space.
I’m sure there are legacy reasons why LocalScripts are even allowed to edit datamodel properties that are filtered. I.e. functionality that depends on the ability to create a desync.
Not just legacy reasons. People do a ton of locally rendered effects these days, which are implemented though creating and modifying local objects which will never be replicated back to the server.
If you mean for server created objects, people still need to be able to edit these objects locally. For instance, if you want to implement any sort of dragging behavior, you need custom local control of the position so that the dragging is responsive even though the server will eventually get those changes too through remote events.