Part size limit

Why is the minimum size a part can be 0.05 studs?

1 Like

Why would you want a smaller part?

When i make a sword the blade looks too thick to cut anything.

I guess i could fix this by using wedges for a sharp edge

If you wish to request the ability to make smaller pars (and a topic about it doesn’t already exist) id recommend making a post in #platform-feedback:engine-features

Ok then, its not really affecting anything im building, im just curious.

If you genuinely wanted to ask ‘why’ its capped to that id imagine its due to storage constraints (complete shot in the dark here) and storing more specific numbers would take up significant amounts of memory

Probably, but i dont know how a smaller number could take up more memory.

Number bases - Fundamentals of data representation - AQA - GCSE Computer Science Revision - AQA - BBC Bitesize I would recommend this if your interested in how computers store numbers.

Ok then, ill check it out.
Seems interesting.

1 Like

I would highly suggest making swords in Blender if that’s a problem.

With plugins or by forcing it, you can get 0.01 part size if 0.05 is bothering you but…

Why is it capped?
As pointed out in another thread this is how small 0.01 is, you can barely see the difference beyond this - especially when you get smaller and smaller. This example is zoomed in and yet its still small as hell.
Common misconceptions we forget as computer objects aren’t the same as real life:

  • Our eyesight is different to a computer screen, as computers are digital those tiny tiny parts would need to be represented using the pixels on the screen - this is basically useless for 0.01 parts as from a distance it would be single or no pixels wide. At super close, you’d have 5 - 10 probably at max representing your object which in a practicality sense is useless when you get the same idea from 0.01.
  • Sharp, can be given to blunt looking objects because they are sharp enough to cut you. Sometimes its easy to forget how “sharp” something would be realistically because our brain doesn’t connect the dots - you see a plastic texture at 0.01 and your brain might go “not sharp enough” whereas with metal reflecting light your brain might easily say “its sharp”.

The problem you pointed out just of the “blade looks too thick to cut anything”, if you aren’t happy with the blade you can simply use unions to achieve nice sharps but as your seeing a knife from a flat surface up close of course its going to seem like its not “sharp enough” when in reality from a distance it looks completely different. A modern eating knife for example, is relatively blunt and yet that thing can cut through stuff. A real knife: if you look at it up close (don’t stab yourself in the eye please) you can see it seems flat if you really look at it because your eyes just wont focus.

A brief and hardly discussed reasons why we might not want it.

So why do we not want to go smaller and smaller in as basic a way as possible…

  1. Now computers, if we make this happen will have to store the even smaller number for the size and represent it - as computers use binary (0’s and 1’s) to represent large numbers such as 200045234 the computer would see this number as:
    Now computers have their limits of 32 and 64 bits which means eventually you hit a point where you have to say ‘no’ as it can only store 2^32 or 2^64 unsigned.
    If you implement decimal numbers, this becomes even more of a task as that same space would now also be used to store .5 .25 .125 etc - to which it then has to accurately store this number as best it can because computers will absolutely hate our decimal system. You can either have increasing large objects, or increasingly smaller objects for that limited space.
    So why would we want to go smaller and smaller when it makes the physics calculations more complex for the slightest bit more detail which 99% of people won’t embrace anyway.
  2. Tiny tiny parts would still need to be handled in a newtonian physics model (this is the physics model which basically says, gravity brings apple to ground and then another force stops it falling through the earth…), people have suggested why don’t we let parts go to “actual zero” to which the issue would be that they’d have to create special cases all over the place to tolerate zero-mass, zero-volume things and not subject them to calculations that assume positive, non-zero physical and geometry properties. Which for the effort would be absolute hell. For the simplicity of calculations, it would automatically be rounded to 0.01 at the time anyway because its hard to represent zero-mass and zero-volume or even imagine it.