Is it bad to use RopeConstraints for Visuals?

Help and Feedback Building Support
, ,
#1

I’m currently working on a railway game, and I thought it would be a great idea to use RopeConstraints as visuals on both utility poles and catenary wires. However, I have no clue if this will cause problems down the road especially in terms of memory usage. Should I use something else? If so, what methods should I use?

Your responses are appreciated :slight_smile:

#2

I’m not sure, but you could make 3 test places to try it out:

  • One with wire curves made of anchored Parts. Make each curve a Model.
  • One with wires made of MeshParts which is probably better since you can make an entire smooth wire with less tris than a bunch of cylinder Parts.
  • One with RopeConstraints.

Excessively spam copy/paste the items (each Model, MeshPart, or RopeConstraint counts as 1 wire) until you have the same total number of ‘wires’ in each place. See which starts to lag first when you test play it. Very large amounts will stress test your computer and tell you which starts to lag last.

3 Likes
#3

if the poles don’t have physics i suggest using mesh parts as they are more optimized than regular parts and they aren’t physics based at all like rope constraints. or you can do what @Scottifly says.

#4

So, I’ve tried this and loading in with 79920 RopeConstraints loaded, it doesn’t seem to lag the game. I don’t really feel like trying to find a mesh for a rope and I feel like this is enough to make sure it works, right? Anyways, the parts that the constraints are attached to are anchored, which might make it a lot easier on the simulation I’m assuming.

1 Like