Double post, don’t care.
Let’s all just think here for a moment, this is something both @ScriptOn and I finally agree on. That has to mean something, right?
1 Like
I think I just want to know one thing. Is it game breaking? Will an error occur that will crash clients? If not, and it’s just an annoyance with the physics solver, why not just have a disclaimer posted somewhere about the physics not working as intended? And through word of mouth, or experimentation, people will learn to use it with caution.
Posting multiple times to bump, and hopefully receive a response.
yo can we stop beating up silent lol.
6 Likes
Let’s all cheer up with Petelgeuse
Edit: Is it ironic that he’s from Re Zero
1 Like
but it seemed to work fine
2 Likes
Don’t fix whats not broken.
2 Likes
@Maximum_ADHD Does that still happen with a size of 0.01? Or only when it’s 0?
@RBXKyle [quote=“RBXKyle, post:32, topic:28920”]
it was a joke.
[/quote]
I think you really need to learn the difference between a straight up direct attack on someone, and a joke.
From the staff member I’ve spoken to (who shall remain unnamed unless he’s OK with it), it’s apparently a physics issue. But when asked if it was game breaking or just an annoyance, I was left unanswered. Can’t blame the guy who answered as he may just be relaying answers, but it doesn’t seem to be game breaking. Unions being able to go under 0.2 is also apparently a bug, but we’ve had it for months with no major issues what so ever. So why we are also not allowed to have parts or meshparts (which allow, or will allow, materials) is beyond me.
You really don’t like to stop arguing the same point I’ve told you about twice now. It could have been satire, but the way it came out and the way you worded it was a direct attack towards a guy who probably is just relaying a message to us (although it would be nice for him to relay more information so we aren’t left in the dark like usual).
Simple answer: Edit your original post to make it clear it’s a joke, or delete it as you seem to be the only one seeing it as a joke.
Now, this is getting stupidly off topic. Again, I’d rather Lilly or others not lock such an important thread because you want to win an argument not even worth fighting over. Just edit or delete the original, or shut up and get on topic.
That argument ends here or I’m going to lock the thread.
All posts after this one should be about Part sizes and their limits.
6 Likes
This is an issue with union shadows – not regular parts.
(Left part scaled to 0 on one axis with mesh, right part edited to 0 on one axis through XML edits)
As far as I can tell there aren’t any issues besides size=0 parts disappearing if unanchored when the game is run. This may just be an intended safeguard though and not an actual bug. As long as the part isn’t size=0 on one axis, it’s fine – even if it’s 0.00000001.
In most cases though, I’ve never needed to actually have the size set to 0 on a particular axis. I just need it to go below 0.2 – nearly 100% of the time it’s because I want to uniformly scale a part down that’s already 0.2 on one axis.
2 Likes