Minor annoyances with Godot.

joel127

After more than a year working with Godot I start to know the program quite well, and in general it is very good and well designed. However with more and more experience minor annoyances start to add up and begin creating big frustrations. Here is my top 5 (I work in 3D):

Physics bodies nodes being created with a little warning sign and no default collision shape, this is the worst. I wish it would create a default collision shape as a child, since this is 99% of the use cases (at least for me).
3D collision shapes being wireframe only in editor, making them very hard to visualize and place properly. Is there a way to have them look solid-transparent ?
Not being a able to set the node name directly when creating a node. Why? I don't want the default name and have to change it in the tree. An edit box is all it takes.
No export(Node). Is there a technical limitation we can't have nice things? I don't want to export a NodePath and have to get the node manually in the code, I just want the node.
NodePaths not updating when moving assets around. When there is a full resource path in a NodePath argument, Godot should be able to update it automatically. Example: preload("This is a node path that won't be updated when moving my assets")

Are those also annoying you? Do you have other ones? Are there settings/workaround? (no, I won't change the source)

I know every game engine has them, and in Godot they are relatively minor, but I just had to put them somewhere. Thanks for listening, don't take this too seriously!

Megalomaniak

Physics bodies nodes being created with a little warning sign and no default collision shape, this is the worst. I wish it would create a default collision shape as a child, since this is 99% of the use cases (at least for me).

And what should the default collisionshape/s be?

Not being a able to set the node name directly when creating a node. Why? I don't want the default name and have to change it in the tree. An edit box is all it takes.

That sounds super annoying, most of the time the default names are fine. Being forced to name them each time you add a new node is an extra step, just like having to pick collision shapes is.

No export(Node). Is there a technical limitation we can't have nice things? I don't want to export a NodePath and have to get the node manually in the code, I just want the node.

$

NodePaths not updating when moving assets around. When there is a full resource path in a NodePath argument, Godot should be able to update it automatically. Example: preload("This is a node path that won't be updated when moving my assets")

preload hardcodes the path(gets compiled into your game). Use load instead then. :confused:

joel127

A collision shape is always almost a cube or a sphere (capsule for Kinematic bodies), so adding that by default would be great. Then it could remember the last shape you used and put that as a default.

preload hardcodes the path(gets compiled into your game). Use load instead then. It is when moving assets in the Editor, all the internal references in the .tscn files get updated automatically (which is great), but the references in the source code don't get changed. Godot could easily detect and update them as well. Anyway, this is quite minor, since moving assets is not too frequent.

cybereality

A collision shape could literally be any shape possible. I mean, yes, cube shapes are common but not 100%. For example, for a character you probably want a capsule, not a cube or a sphere. Or if the mesh is not convex, maybe you need multiple shapes and a single shape could block an area the player should walk through.

That said, if you click the Mesh button on the top center, there is an option to create a collision shape from the mesh (for example a convex collision shape). I would say maybe they could add a box shape, that would be a minimally enclosing AABB or OBB, which would seem straight-forward for the engine to calculate. I've done this myself with a custom engine, it is fairly simple, and might be a good feature.

joel127

I'm just taking about a default shape to make life easier here, of you course you can then change it to your liking. The thing is Godot would remember what you used and set is as a default the next time.

Anyway, my main issue is not with the shape itself but with the Collision node we HAVE to add to a RigidBody/StaticBody/KinematicBody/Area node. There are only 2 options: CollisionShape or CollisionPolygon, and I don't even know who uses collisions polygons in 3D. Could not Godot automatically add the CollisionShape node ? Or provide a one-click solution ? Having to manually add a new node and browse the node list every single time to add something that is mandatory anyway is really a pain. The 10 first times it is ok but then you realize you will need to do this until the end of times.

Megalomaniak

Well if the idea is starting to come together then perhaps you should open a proposal on the appropriate repo: https://github.com/godotengine/godot-proposals/issues/new/choose

joel127

Well, I won't open a proposal if I'm the only one feeling that way.

Megalomaniak

I never said I disagreed with your first point, I just found it lacking in detail.

TwistedTwigleg

@joel127 said: Anyway, my main issue is not with the shape itself but with the Collision node we HAVE to add to a RigidBody/StaticBody/KinematicBody/Area node. There are only 2 options: CollisionShape or CollisionPolygon, and I don't even know who uses collisions polygons in 3D. Could not Godot automatically add the CollisionShape node ? Or provide a one-click solution ? Having to manually add a new node and browse the node list every single time to add something that is mandatory anyway is really a pain. The 10 first times it is ok but then you realize you will need to do this until the end of times.

The collision polygon is super useful for when you want to generate a CollisionShape from a mesh, and then use that instead of collision shapes. While it is not very useful to manually define points, from a back-end point of view, it is very useful to have, especially for making strange/complex collision shapes.

@joel127 said: Well, I won't open a proposal if I'm the only one feeling that way.

Well, opening a proposal would also have the added benefit of allowing you to see if there are others who feel the same, which would be beneficial. Though, I might suggest breaking the proposal down into multiple parts if possible, so each one can be evaluated individually. Besides, worse case it just gets closed. I do not think there is any harm in proposing and offering feedback, that's what helps the engine grow :smile:

Megalomaniak

Right, I meant a proposal for the first point. Maybe also the second? Others I'm not sure are really applicable.