Nah I don’t believe it’s normal. I just tried reproducing on 4.1.2 and it works fine on 60 ticks. I’d say try pushing a minimal project to a public repo on github or something that illustrates your problem. If we can’t help you then, surely Godot Engine contributors would use it to fix an underlying issue in the engine.
I use Godot with .NET and this issue arises with me exclusively when I move tscn files around. I fix it by opening the broken tscn file in a text editor and I see whether it is referencing a scene that has been moved or otherwise doesn’t exist.
Maybe you can devise a custom gizmo for the spline nodes in your network graph. So each gizmo has an Area3D which monitors for a collider in the intersection nodes, and registers a connection when hovered over said intersection. You give two of the these gizmos to each of your intersection spline nodes for start and end, and you’re gucci.
Yes! It very often is a reasonable thing to say! In the sense that if you fix one bug, you might be creating a couple more bugs. Like opening a can of worms. But the author in this case used this as a retort to the community saying “if you have an issue with the engine, and you can fix it, then please contribute the fix to the github repo”. So ultimately, the argument seems to be why would one contribute fixes to the engine when one might have to fix another issue afterwards. This is antithetical to the nature of FOSS and immediately discredited the author, in my mind, as having a technical discussion in good faith. I’d love to give quotes that brought me to this conclusion, but the article seems to have been taken down as I write this.
They are better served using Unreal Engine and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Well reasoned points.
Regarding your 2nd point, absolutely correct. But man does it look good in a hit piece such as this article. Appeasing the needs of the many is a delicate procedure that sometimes involves using in-engine data structures and not just fixed length arrays, much to the chagrin of the author. Less maintenance at the very least.
Regarding your 4th point, Godot can accommodate the need for precompiled shaders, it can add adapter layers around its Vulkanic render pipeline, it can technically play by console rules. But there is the one thing that it can’t do. It can’t just publish usage of a proprietary API to a public git repo. That will always be the albatross around Godot’s ass. But I would pose the following question: is this a flaw of Godot or a flaw of the status quo, which forces FOSS into a permanent song and dance to be on equal footing with private enterprise?
Fucking exactly. And here to finish my article, a person that called Godot a “scrappy little engine” built by a “gameplay engineer”.
Godot is obviously not a flawless diamond placed behind museum glass, but don’t give me this bullshit that this article is written solely in the name of technical due diligence.
The probative value of the article is massively outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
In other words, it’s a smear campaign. The author is literally saying, oh I can fix all of these issues, but I don’t know what other issue might come up. This is horse raddish. Balloon juice. A downright dismissal. As if you’d have better luck with the walled-off garden that is Unity or UE. They simply stated issues the community has already been talking about, and framed it as Godot is a lost cause not even worth fixing.
And here’s the bullshido that the author implemented. They sprinkled in the thing about Godot being tied to the Vulkan API. This is valid criticism. Surprise surprise, a FOSS engine being worked on by a handful of paid devs and some volunteers has more work that it needs done on it. But now if you disagree with the thing I said about it being a smear campaign, they throw Ol’ Faithful at you:
“An engine is a tool, not a cult.” “Oh, you disagree with the article. Are you saying that Godot is perfect?” “So you’re saying that there are no technical issues with Godot?” “You can only release low poly games with 3D Godot.”
As soon as the status quo was disturbed, suddenly the imperfections of Godot are on full blast. Juan Linietsky and Co. are now to drop literally everything they were doing and address the smear campaign’s concerns, lest it be successful. I suppose that’s both a positive and a negative.
OK well you’re not doing anything wrong. It’s just that the default Godot physics server needs work. For what its worth, in this example that you’ve shown, the problem can be amended if you do the following:
In Project Settings -> Physics -> 3D
You can also enable Continuous CD in the Rigid Bodies but that usually just helps with detecting collisions in fast-moving bodies.
Your other option is to replace the default GodotPhysics3D with another one, as has already been stated.
I wouldn’t recommend submitting an issue to the developers. I’m pretty sure they’re aware of the physics server shortcomings.