This has still not been addressed
24 Likes
i agree this update sucks and is so faithful i hate it
16 Likes
It finally got reversed. I hope the team does more work on R6 and fixes these problems!
18 Likes
yep i agree its a bad update i hate it aswell
18 Likes
This issue doesn’t seem to have been addressed
15 Likes
I’ve seen so much flame for this feature but for me I’ve never had a single issue with adaptive time stepping, I don’t think the issues people have shown in reply to this post are due to the update itself or “Roblox being broken” but rather the code those games use not being able to account for the varying time it takes to process physics or rendering each frame, which is already a problem even without this update, it’s just less pronounced.
I’m my opinion any good physics and or rendering game code should be able to account for it possibly taking longer or shorter amounts of time to process physics and rendering frames, because it already does vary every frame even if not by a lot when using fixed time stepping.
I do understand that old abandoned games can’t fix this but that isn’t really at the fault of Roblox as a platform but rather the developers, not saying they should break them, but still.
Note: I am NOT saying adaptive time stepping is flawless, I’m saying I haven’t had any issues with it since it came out, I am seemingly not the only one either.
I’m also not calling anyone a bad developer, please take this with a grain of salt.
17 Likes
Adding on to my previous post, I’m glad to see not everyone has ran into issues with this setting. However, there are certainly problems with it. Dropping a 1x1x1 part 10 studs above an anchored part shouldn’t cause it to clip inside.
An API allowing devs to control a specific part’s stepping rate would definitely be useful. As a developer, we generally know what a moving part will be used for and can find the appropriate stepping rate. On the other hand, no matter how advanced it may get, Roblox’s engine can only guess.
Place file:
Broken Physics.rbxl (43.2 KB)
18 Likes
I think that this change in behavior should not happen for old games, at all. Games that cannot be updated anymore. Change the standard option in new places only for example.
I am a huge supportor of these physics changes in general, and I’m also hoping for multiple modes instead of just adaptive (restricted to 120/240, more aggressive than adaptive etc).
15 Likes
Two things
- Thanks for fixing the root part issue I brought up a few months ago
- I feel like something like this, the developer needs an API for edgecases on stepping where I can force the assembly’s stepping rate.
This would be useful for things like player-controlled vehicles, or, as lots of people pointed out, characters. It doesn’t even need to force it to 240, it can force it to any of the three stepping modes, or let the engine dynamically decide.
Basically, something like the NetworkOwnership APIs that we have
9 Likes
I am a bit concerned. When Adaptive Timestepping was initially announced, Roblox announced intent to remove the Fixed option and snatch away control from developers yet again in order to push their own vision of optimisation. In newer threads, it mentions that we can opt-out of Adaptive Timestepping and the Fixed option will remain available - but we are still encouraged to test our experiences with Adaptive.
What is the move here? Is Roblox finally committed towards retaining the Fixed option however pushing Adaptive Timestepping as the default, or is there still intent to remove the option? If so, may insight be provided on why Fixed would no longer be an option? Some developers optimise physics and other systems enough to warrant the accuracy of 240hz and skip the arbitrary determination of Adaptive. I’ve expressed before that I really hate blackboxed features and lack of developer control.
30 Likes
making the conveyor bigger gets rid of the issue, of course it still shouldnt do this in the first place but 
this is a solution
@OutlookG a potential solution for this is to allow client control over the vector force object, disabled until player jumps or is freefalling
many of these issues can be addressed on our own but are we expected to fix them to accommodate the new physics method? I’m not sure if we are, or if the method just have quirks and bugs that need to be dealt with.
1 Like
Yeah there needs to be a way to revert this or a fix asap, it’s absolutely screwed up my cars and the BodyThrust I use with the vehicleseat just slows it down when turning left, which didn’t happen before this update
3 Likes
This isn’t just an issue in one studio of mine, other studios I open are having the same issues
2 Likes
Yeah I NEED an option to revert this as soon as possible otherwise my ENTIRE game is going to be broken and not worth working on anymore, thanks for breaking my game roblox 
4 Likes
Roblox did
Roblox has explained how to disable this change:
Instead of just complaining here, you could have
- taken the time to read the posts on this topic
- and realized that the changes had already been reverted,
- and that all developers had already been informed of this change.
So you could have had this fixed in your experience before the public change.
However, adaptive timestepping should work and make your game perform better if you are not using the legacy physics objects like BodyMovers.
Adaptive Timestepping | Documentation - Roblox Creator Hub
Adaptive timestepping can improve physics performance by up to 2.5 times and it is recommended in most cases.
So you should consider updating your game to benefit from this update by not using BodyMovers. Use Constraints instead. Here’s more information about it: Mover Constraints | Documentation - Roblox Creator Hub
10 Likes
Adaptive has it’s place and so does Fixed. As long as the two remain in the future for developers to pick, I have no issue with the two co-existing. But… if Adaptive is going to be the default, it should at least work well enough in an empty baseplate. 
7 Likes
Except it seems quite buggy with legacy body movers, which should expectly still work if this change was “seamless as possible”. Based off the responses on this thread, and my own bug report I submitted 2 years ago, but got zero response on.
3 Likes
Doesn’t mean I should have to do this, this should just work automatically without me needing to change anything.
3 Likes
Not everyone is eyeing the devforum to be able to see the upcoming warning and not to mention there were genuine bugs with this change as I assume phasing through walls isn’t intentional. Not to mention the old games this would break (when its not necessary at all to break them).
Not saying they shouldn’t push this change or its completely their fault when they warned us. I just find it a little silly that they provided a prompt when opening studio whether we wanted to update our terrain water shorelines to their new shoreline system but they couldn’t prompt us for this change which damaged games beyond any damage a shoreline update could do.
Not bashing staff as it obviously wasn’t the intention to break games. I am just providing an alternative to push this change much smoother and in a way that makes everyone happy.
5 Likes