x


Physics performance still effected by proximity even though IgnoreCollisions called and objects never interact

Hi,

I have a model made up of a dynamic moving physics part and the rest static physics parts. The different parts are effectively touching.

I've tried different things, initially i had the dynamic part without a rigidbody, and just used the transform to cause it to move.

I've hit performance issues on an original iPhone and started profiling it.

Someone recommended that you should always use rigidbodies, so I added an RB, made it kinematic and used it to move the object instead. This massively reduced my fixedupdate profiled time, but just moved it and more time onto the physx part.

I just had an idea and tried moving dynamic part away from the static parts and noticed that the framerate is much improved.

I figured that it was perhaps due to the collisions being detected between the static meshes and the dynamic mesh. Though this didn't make too much sense when the dynamic object had NO rigidbody.

Anyway, i've just setup ignore collision calls in the start function of the object's script to make the dynamic part ignore the static parts.

This sadly hasn't helped performance, with or without an RB. Yet again, moving the dynamic object away from the static ones makes the performance decrease.

I'm presuming something is happening with the spatial arrangement of all the meshes together, that seperating them enough allows proper islands to form and stop things being so expensive.

Is there anything else i can do? Its a bit frustrating that physics is so expensive even though i actually don't want these entities interacting with one another, i just want the physics interacting with another dynamic entity which i haven't introduced into the scene at this point.

Thanks for your help

more ▼

asked Feb 23 '10 at 11:46 PM

jimbobuk gravatar image

jimbobuk
1.1k 34 42 54

Could you perhaps post a screenshot and label the parts for us? Your setup is hard to visualise.

Feb 24 '10 at 03:37 AM Motionreactor

thanks. If i get no joy i will do. I posted another question following the performance investigation going in a different direction. I need to sort through it all properly to really see what's going off.

Feb 24 '10 at 07:15 PM jimbobuk

@jimbobuk Did you ever figure this out?

May 26 '11 at 03:37 PM Herman Tulleken
(comments are locked)
10|3000 characters needed characters left

1 answer: sort voted first
more ▼

answered Feb 24 '10 at 03:17 AM

Aubrey Falconer gravatar image

Aubrey Falconer
657 45 53 68

at the point the performance is hit there isn't any rigidbodies in the scene. After adding a single RB to the scene i don't want this to sleep. It's always moving.

Thanks though

Feb 24 '10 at 07:15 PM jimbobuk
(comments are locked)
10|3000 characters needed characters left
Your answer
toggle preview:

Up to 2 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 524.3 kB each and 1.0 MB total.

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Topics:

x1999
x1865
x660

asked: Feb 23 '10 at 11:46 PM

Seen: 1417 times

Last Updated: May 26 '11 at 03:37 PM