This is always like that...
Many people invite me to give up. And curiously, one event in the time or the "good person" allow me to solve the problem. I observed one thing in common with these people: they give information and they expect the applicant will understand in one-shot, if he doesn't understand after two or three time, they suggest to give up, because they have difficulties to go at the bottom of things.
Last Friday, i see someone, in another forum, ask a question about the difference between rigid body and soft body. One "colleague" says rigid body will "simulate" rigid objects like a stone but it will not deform and the soft body "simulate" soft objects but the colleague estimated it's not necessary to specify soft will deform. He gives that information in one line, the applicant doesn't understand well, so i make an answer with a range of 4 lines with more concrete examples, he understands.
I just have used another words but the message was identical, why does he understands me and not my colleague ?
Sometimes i wonder if this majority of people realize they speak to others like they speak to themselves, are they afraid of something when they make an answer ? Are they afraid to have an headache or hurt they fingers ?
If these people expect the applicant will understand information without complete explanation, it's like trying touch something he can't see...
And so, the caregivers will be frustrated to waste their time, because they don't take the time to avoid waste of time through their answer. They don't help themselves to this.
When someone says something like "Do a simple line vs box intersection test instead.", ok, right...
- What exactly the goal of this method ? This is a great keyword for google and allow me to "see" the idea
- What benefit i will have to use that ?
- What i will obtain ?
- What the tool allow me to set up/implemant that ?
These information missing, so i can suppose all i want and go to the wrong way. Why @xyz afraid to say more ?
This is the same for "caching": says something like "This can help but must not help in your case." contradicts the idea and again, technical informations missing. What i'm supposed to understand ?
So these people feels to waste they time and everybody be frustrated.
as long you are tied to Godot 3 you cant use the modern navmesh system ... that's a shame because it would solve all your hassle here
Pathfinding is always a complex thing. In RTS games it has to be good becaus its all the bread-and-butter. I think a-star is by far the simplest approach to that.
What allow you to think the navmesh system is better for a procedural generated map ? For me, navmeshes is suitable only for handmade map, is it possible to adapt navmeshes for any map ?
Why do you consider Astar system isn't the best approach, why this system is present them ?
Do you realize if i change the version of godot when a new version coming, i will always waste time to adapt the news features, in or out, the code ? What append if i encounter a "bug" or something incompatible with my material which disallow to move on ? Does i need to "give up" ?
edit: i found a way that solve my problem, it's effective and low cost but i'd like to understand this story of line vs box intersection test before to share it.