ph_poly bogus on 6.4 PRO

I have a simple cube over the floor using the POLY flag:
Code:

---

 
 phent_settype(ent_poly, PH_RIGID, PH_POLY);	
 phent_setmass(ent_poly, 0.5, PH_POLY);
 

---

this code works on 6.31 but on 6.4 the cube sinks on the floor.
I have a simple project test to reproduce this bug.
Any ideas?

http://manual.conitec.net/phent_settype.htm

"Do not use PH_POLY for moving entities."

The reason is that neither the physics engine, nor the collision engine supports collisions between two polygonal entities. You'll find details in the collision chapter.

This paragraph is new, it wasn't on my manual. (The last I could find on the download site)
But as you see I can use it on the 6.31 version. I need to simulate bowling pines, a cylinder doesn't make it.

Perhaps a nice physics primitive addition would be a 'cone' shape? (a cylinder with on one side a point) This would be sufficient enough for bowling pins I think and still be faster than a poly precise physics object,

Cheers

If it works on 6.31... Is safe to use this version?

Did you try the A6.50.2? You can find it in the updates/announcements forum, perhaps that version works too. I'd recommend using the most recent version, a bit depending on how soon you are going to release your project, but I would choose A6.40 over A6.31,

Cheers

No, I'm afraid it is NOT safe to use PH_POLY on moving objects with version 6.31. The manual paragraph was indeed missing in previous manuals, but poly<->poly collisions were also not supported in earlier versions, although they might have behaved differently. They aren't supported in 6.50 either.

So I´ve to ask:
For what the heck is ph_poly implemented then? You don´t need a physical object that doesn´t move at all...
Than I can´t understand why it works perfectly with 6.31. Even more I can´t understand why it won´t work with 6.40.5 and above. I can´t understand these restrictions, because in some situations it works.
But you should let the user decide, if he wants to use a feature or not. When I´ve encountered problems, I´ve used a workaround. But at many cases it works just perfectly (under 6.31).

With this behaviour "ph_poly" is completely useless.

Please note: I´m NOT talking about poly <--> poly collision, but about poly <--> levelblocks or static polygonal models.
Because I´ve trouble with these collisions as well. The entities are falling through the floor sometimes.
The threatstarter doesn´t use moving objects, too. Just a polygonal cube above the floor. But the floor doesn´t move!

Sometimes I think that you won´t believe, that there are any bugs in Gamestudio. Take the c_trace bug as example. BS_Twinbits needs two posts and very long explainations to make you believe that there´s a bug.
Not a good PR, if you ask me. It´s a bit arrogant, at least it looks like this.

Got to say I find this new development somewhat worrying.

I have used PH_POLY before under the illusion that it was working fine, in most cases with nothing that appeared to be wrong. I recently posted some quiries about this bcz ph_POLY was behaving wierdly, now it seems this is bcz PH_POLY never really worked and certainly doesn't with the later versions of A6...

TBH This makes no sense to me at all.

Models set to polygon=on, react with physics correctly already, or at least they seem too. So what point is the ph_POLY???

Ok lets try and look at this with some clarity.

I have an object, lets say a mushroom shape, I can either use PH_SPHERE, PH_BOX or maybe PH_CYLINDER but not POLY? So none of these physics shapes suits my model, and the only one that would is unavailable.

I have to say If this is the case, I completely agree with Fogman, and I now have some major concerns after spending 14 months developing something that I now find is not actually possible in A6 despite having test environments that I did 18-24 months ago before embarking on this latest project.

Can I ask, why is PH_POLY not available? Personally I was hoping to put togethether a system that used a low-poly collision hull set to PH_POLY with attached high_poly models, to save collision processing time and improve performance... but now I find I can only use fundemental poly shapes...

What on earth am i going to do with my UH-60 for collisions now???

I look forward to reading the responses from Conitec and the community about this matter with interest.