A good component structure for a tank?

Questions & Answers
1

According to the physics manual…

  • Never put rigid bodies components in both parent and child.
  • Never transform static objects (objects with collider BUT no rigid body).

Suppose we have the following structure…

Legend:

ParentGameObject ( Component(s) )
  ChildGameObject ( Component(s) )

Tank (Rigidbody, MovementScript)
  Body   (MeshCollider)
  Turret (MeshCollider)

The Turret is, by definition, a static object then? So we should not transform it (e.g. rotating the turret)?

What is a good component structure for this scenario?

2

Ahh - your turret would not, at all, be a “static” object

Totally and utterly forget anbout “static” objects, they are irrelevant to you. Mark nothing as static in your tank.

You’re on the right track - it’s simple. Have one overall object (Let’s call it PlatonicTank) that probably has a rigidbody and one big collider. Below PlatonicTank, add the actual tank body, then below that the turret. Note you can simply ROTATE the turret and that will work. Below the turret add the LargeGun, and note that you can just angle that up and down and it all works. (Tip make sure it is centered on the appropriate point to angle up and down, you may need to and should add a “wrapper”.)

So, that’s it.

Regarding your reading of the documents (“Never transform static objects (objects with collider BUT no rigid body)”) this just has nothing to do with objects that move around, vehicles etc - forget about it totally. It literally only applies to Boulders that sit there - they should have called that flag “Boulders” :slight_smile: forget about the issue for now.

Now regarding literally moving the tank, PlatonicTank - it’s never that easy to move vehicles! Vehicles are definitely difficult. For cars, have a look at the package everyone uses in every car game, Edy’s Vehicle Physics. Motorbikes are really tricky and tanks are a pain because there’s many ways to do them so there is a lot of decisions.