And how does deprecating SpecialMeshes to make way for better solutions not think about the community and its investors?
4 Likes
Because they would deprecate it for 2-4 months, then completely remove it.
Even if they did keep it, deprecating would be enough to break games. after enough updates.
Breaking more than half of all games. And it’s not like they can just swap them out, MeshSize and PartSize both have to be considered. So do collisions. That’s why I am saying I don’t want it removed. I’m not saying roblox is some selfish company that only wants their payers to be happy, but that they should listen to their own developers more, instead of trying to please the investors with all this futuristic ‘metaverse’ stuff.
(there are also scripts that require specialmeshes)
3 Likes
Deprecate just means to not support natively.
It’s honestly funny when people say this, because this is their immediate response to changes happening that they don’t like.
4 Likes
Yes-i said they would deprecate it then remove it. So after time, it would start getting very bad with rendering, boxes, sizing, lag.
I don’t like the possibility because it’s a very useful feature that is needed for types of games. This isn’t just ‘what people say’ it’s literally an old feature they are removing to please their investors.
I can assure you that many others do not like the chances of this happening either. Literally over 10,000,000 games have SpecialMeshes.
at least 28 of those being on, or at least near the front page.
3 Likes
ok now make it so i can stretch the ball like how it would with a mesh
6 Likes
they wont do that, take bodyvelocity for an example, its gone but you can still use and still there. they wont remove special mesh because that would break a whole lot of games. infact if did then you can probably still use it.
3 Likes
#TrussRights
trusses are great fr fr (theyre one of the last relics of Old Roblox before it sold its soul and became a multi billion dollar corporation)
8 Likes
Will these improvements also affect existing models and games that were built using the previous behavior of the Size and Shape properties?
And I would like to know if there is a setting or extra property that allows developers to switch between the new behavior of the size and shape properties and the previous behavior? This could offer flexibility for those who have particular use cases where the old behavior is still preferred, while still allowing them to take advantage of the general advancements in other scenarios Xx
2 Likes
this is gonna be a the best improvment to sizing!!!
(btw when are we going to have the ability to size the truss more longer?)
5 Likes
This is gonna prevent so many headaches! I don’t even wanna know how many times I’ve had to argue with balls having locked sizes and parts not being able to just become wedges. Building’s going to be a lot easier now.
3 Likes
Are you asking about being able to resize balls like the size lock still existed? If so, then that already exists in the form of holding Shift while resizing a part. The ball’s X, Y, and Z size values would all have to be the same before resizing ofc tho.
3 Likes
Good idea, it’s about time we moved up that limit and it’s a trivial change. I put that into motion.
20 Likes
Would love to see trusses become more first class. Right now they prevent you from scaling them too far down to where their funky model wouldn’t fit. This should be handled better so we can scale them to any size. Honestly, just introduce a new property to Parts that make them climbable, or make a new ladder type of part, or revert the truss model to a simple part if below a certain size, and add logic so they render correctly when scaled in at least 2 dimensions. Trusses are the only way to make fool-proof ladders, or to add a climbing surface somewhere that isn’t modelled literally physically (e.g. vine walls). While trusses and the current climbing mechanics leave much to be desired, Roblox can do significantly better in the short term with minimal impact on backwards compatibility just by improving the usability of this part type.
9 Likes
I believe roblox is trying to introduce this with the recently added ControllerPartSensor instance (although it doesn’t seem to do anything right now).
4 Likes
More sensible “climbability” logic will definitely be investigated as part of the various efforts going on to increase the configurability of humanoids. We’re aware how weird of a Roblox-ism “climbable → use a TrussPart” is.
Allowing a greater TrussPart length isn’t a final solution, just a quick quality of life change that we might as well do because it’s only a few lines of code and won’t cause any issues.
14 Likes
This would be an amazing change, thank you.
5 Likes
Really cool! I always found it weird how CornerWedge was its own part.
1 Like
Finally that thing’s fixed! The changes to the Size property, particularly for spheres, will make things much smoother and consistent between clients and servers. These updates show that the platform is actively listening to user feedback and working to enhance our game development experience. A big round of applause to the team for making these valuable improvements. 
2 Likes
but could truss be a part of the PartType enum if this is the solution for now?
3 Likes
Thats all good until yall broke the “move” box, i uncheck it (the settings of studs movement under model tab) and it wont go to 0 studs movement, it remains as the idk for example 5 studs i had typed (even if i unchecked it it still keeps moving parts 5 studs) so i have to type “0.001” in the studs so it somewhat works like it used to work everytime i unchecked it. And is irregular ad well for that “1” please fix this asap, since before i could also copy and paste a part over another and it would appear centered on top of it, now it doesnt even work anymore and affects my workflow grandly.
2 Likes