That was removed from the Forecast.

How many more examples do you need, though? Haven't we made it clear that ellipsoids do not serve our purposes or give us the behavior we want? We don't want objects to "climb" things when the edge of their collision hull hits them, and we don't want objects to "slide off" of platforms when they get close to the edge. We don't want the "USE_BOX" flag to behave like a "USE_ORB" flag.

I've already given you the example with the window in the "AABB support" thread, and Superku has already demonstrated his problem with a multitude of images and examples. For my problem, your solution was to place an invisible block over the hole, but that's more of a quick fix than a real solution to the problem. The collision system is still prone to errors like that.

We want to be able to use collision hulls with perfectly flat bottoms and perfectly vertical sides that match the vertical depth of the model that the hull is attached to, because that's exactly what we need.

Indeed it seems really strange that AABB was a "feature" once in the pro version and now it´s completely gone.
I would like to have again the possibility to switch between ellipsoid and box.

If a company has its customers demanding new collision shapes, its your responsibility to provide for the customers needs. I looked at the examples posted in this thread as well as the other one (forgot what it was called), and I have not had ANY trouble understanding their argument. So where is the problem? I understand that adding new collision shaped may be troublesome and require proper testing. But isnt that what this community is for? Release a few betas and let us test it. Thats what you have done in the past and that system works. You guys sure didnt have a problem migrating to Lite-C in a rather speedy matter I say we should get a poll going to see exactly where tis community stands.

The fact that this issue keeps popping up is a testament in and of itself to how much people really want it. We need this feature, what more is there to say?

Trying to argue for an issue like this is like trying to argue why a hammer is the optimal tool for beating down nails.

A hammer? Well that'd work much better than using our foreheads!

Jibb

What i don't understand is why in forecast there is lot more complicated things like :
Cloth simulation. Liquids. Soft bodies.
Instead of more simpler things like new collision primitives ?

I htink the best way is to implement yourself the Nvidia Physix collision shapes you need !
You'll nerver be as well served as by yourselves

What would be cool is tyhe advanced character controller :
Nvidia features page

But again if you are a programmer, i would want to say :
make it by yourself if the feature is not in forecast
or if you don't want to wait months too longer


It's a rule , that follow some people using Ogre 3D, tehy have the graphic engine, they implement the physic API they want and the features they want, and finnaly they make the game successfully !

Asking for something is useless, thats what I got from this thread!
jcl only implements what he likes, doesn't give a damn thing about us...
This is second time when he proves my point by ignoring everyones needs!
About PhysX, I wish some day I could make something similar to this:
Youtube link
But for now, this will be really pain in my ass to make something similar..

PhysX collision shapes are supported since almost a year - just look in the manual. I think I can now safely close this discussion.