Physics or Vector/CFrame Oriented Game?

#1

My current style of building is to base off of physics and use constraints rather than using CFrames, Vector3s, BodyPositions, Body Velocities etc. The popular games use the opposite of what I use and I’m geting this sense that there is a very significant reason why they use CFrames and Vectors rather than Physics.

Everything I build(doors,vehicles etc.) is relying on physics(constraints, gravity etc.). Should I consider switching to CFrames, Vector3s and BodyMovers?

1 Like
#2

Physics Vs. Vector/CFrame


Physics for inconsistent or unpatterned movement or actions. Those are, for instance, vehicles, falling boulders etc. Also this should be applied for specific objects that can be moved by the player, such as instances of boxes. Constraints should be applied for some of these objects.

For CFraming or Vector3, the objects should be replicating movement from script in a pattern that is certainly doing (almost) exactly the same thing time to time. Perhaps if we take the example of Jailbreak’s train, it is working with CFrame and won’t even budge when a collision occurs.

Below is an example of CFraming doors, combined with WeldConstraints to protect it from inconsistencies upon use of Model:SetPrimaryPartCFrame().

You should probably utilise both. When physics is running all over the place, it becomes laggy. CFraming for all will cause lag too, and sometimes causes inconsistencies.

2 Likes