Issues with the Manual

I thought that this might be a useful thread to have: one in which we can report issues, post suggestions or ask questions related to the manual.

For myself, I’ve just discovered that the manual page on collision solids seems to lack information on the new “CollisionBox” (I think that it’s called; the reference seems to be down as of time of writing) solid, including whether it’s useable as a “from” object.

On a similar note, is the “from/into” information still accurate – in particular, are CollisionTubes still not valid as “from” objects?

(I think that I may have some objects that might be better served by an oblong shape – whether box or tube – than a sphere.)

I like that. or can there be user comment area in the manual pages?
so everyone with forum id can write their experience about the specific topic. there should be voting system of which comment is correct/incorrect.
the manual can be built by more people. Youtube links not properly converted to html.

As far as I know, nothing changed about the collision system. Tubes are still notoriously difficult to test, mathematically, it’s probably better to approximate the shape using several spheres, or using a convex hull shape to create something like a prism.

About a comment area in the manual pages: well, we use mediawiki, so there are the talk pages. Other than that, we would have to switch wiki software (perhaps if we ever migrate to github, we can also migrate the wiki to that sort of system) if we want a better commenting system.

As for the YouTube links, this is just because I have to install a plugin. Please remind me in a few weeks; I’m swamped at the moment.

Ah, fair enough, and thank you.

One thing that has changed, I believe – as implied in my first post – is that we now have a “CollisionBox”, which doesn’t seem to be described on the “Collision Solids” page. … 3D_Objects

Should getTag and setTag be setPythonTag and getPythonTag instead? This is to include special NodePaths like Actors.