-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 73
call RBs' _physics_rollback_tick(...) with tick rather than NetworkTi… #633
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
jburdecki
wants to merge
3
commits into
foxssake:main
Choose a base branch
from
jburdecki:fix-issue-632
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+37
−12
Open
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Instead of the looping checks maybe we can clear out the object as soon as it's going to queue free.
Instead of node_removed being called from get_tree().node_removed.connect(node_removed) signal on line 16 we directly hook into the https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/classes/class_node.html#class-node-signal-tree-exiting signal from the node itself.
We do this in node_added ( second last function in this class ) as the node is being registered.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like the idea of moving away from the loop. I changed it to a dictionary to improve lookup times.
Unfortunately though, to your point,
tree_exiting()is called on any tree removal (includingremove_child(), which could be a valid gameplay operation for moving RBs around a scene's tree/heirarchy). https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/classes/class_node.html#class-node-private-method-exit-tree And alternatively checkingis_queued_for_deletion()would miss directfree()calls on RBs. So from what I see we're stuck without a proper (engine/solver-driven) event-based approach on this.