[Bug Report] CollisionPolygon2D wont work with too many points

Help Physics
, ,
1

Godot Version 4.3 Dev1

i have tried to make a map with json of real world map
So i used a staticbody2D
attached it with a polygon2D to show it
a line2D as the outline
and a collisionPolygon2D to check if the mouse is in the area and therefore make the outline visible.

however if i use the same data with polygon2D and CollisionPolygon2D
then the mouse check wont work

image
image1154×694 4.61 KB

i managed to solve this problem by down sampling it, choose only one point each 3 points.
And that do fix the problem

therefore i believe there must be some kind of bug in CollisionPolygon2D

2

the fixed picture is like this

image
image1154×694 5.94 KB

3

the failing data is like
[(94.33, -67.62), (98.46, -65.66), (102.46, -67.12), (100.74, -70.02), (106.22, -74.47), (106.22, -74.47), (109.61, -73.16), (110.96, -75.52), (108.87, -77.02), (100.37, -78.2), (93.72, -76.88), (91.44, -75.29), (87.31, -75.93), (80.29, -78.97), (71.17, -79.51), (70.68, -80.24), (60.7, -78.88), (55.96, -80.47), (52.14, -84), (51.89, -86.86), (44.32, -93.43), (40.81, -94.33), (35.45, -98.5), (30.83, -100.49), (31.69, -102.25), (27.26, -106.59), (29.35, -111.65), (28.3, -113.95), (24.24, -115.44), (21.04, -114.81), (21.77, -111.6), (19.31, -106.95), (16.23, -108.76), (11.43, -107.63), (11.43, -107.63), (5.02, -107.58), (4.22, -104.87), (7.18, -99.49), (-0.71, -100.13), (-3.48, -103.88), (-6.56, -102.43), (-7.11, -99.94), (3.3, -91.44), (6.07, -86.95), (4.84, -86.09), (-8.84, -86.72), (-9.39, -85), (-13.21, -85.77), (-15.8, -88.67), (-18.51, -83.91), (-20.05, -83.5), (-23.37, -79.06), (-24.24, -75.75), (-27.13, -76.15), (-30.64, -72.57), (-40, -67.89), (-42.28, -67.39), (-43.33, -69.75), (-49.74, -71.25), (-52.01, -69.02), (-57.74, -68.25), (-58.54, -65.43), (-62.05, -65.34), (-65.01, -63.52), (-66.92, -59.84), (-62.42, -58.84), (-63.35, -53.87), (-54.11, -45.44), (-48.75, -44.94), (-45.36, -37.69), (-43.64, -35.91), (-50.66, -32.94), (-53.49, -28.09), (-54.97, -28.37), (-55.77, -24.2), (-59.9, -24.85), (-63.16, -27.13), (-65.07, -24.07), (-65.07, -24.07), (-80.53, -21.46), (-81.46, -19.12), (-87.8, -17.11), (-91.99, -13.54), (-95.07, -12.48), (-95.5, -8.77), (-97.66, -7.95), (-97.9, -4.55), (-92.42, -3.08), (-88.23, 0.59), (-88.97, 1.28), (-88.97, 1.28), (-87.92, 2.93), (-89.09, 6.74), (-83.8, 8.86), (-85.28, 11.02), (-89.96, 12.08), (-92.17, 10.65), (-92.17, 10.65), (-96.18, 11.94), (-96.55, 15.3), (-91.87, 16.31), (-91.37, 23.49), (-92.67, 25.43), (-92.67, 25.43), (-88.29, 26.49), (-88.72, 30.77), (-85.95, 28.61), (-81.83, 31.51), (-77.14, 30.54), (-77.14, 30.54), (-73.76, 28.98), (-70.68, 32.71), (-70.68, 32.71), (-70.62, 33.49), (-70.62, 33.49), (-68.83, 34.46), (-68.83, 34.46), (-68.65, 35.11), (-68.65, 35.11), (-68.46, 35.39), (-68.46, 35.39), (-68.28, 36.08), (-68.4, 36.13), (-68.28, 36.08), (-68.28, 36.13), (-68.4, 36.13), (-68.28, 36.13), (-68.03, 36.08), (-68.03, 36.08), (-66.67, 36.49), (-66.67, 36.54), (-66.67, 36.49), (-66.67, 36.54), (-65.26, 38.94), (-59.9, 39.49), (-59.9, 39.49), (-58.42, 38.2), (-58.42, 38.2), (-57.68, 36.36), (-53.74, 35.85), (-53.74, 35.85), (-49, 32.2), (-49, 32.2), (-49.49, 30.45), (-49.49, 30.45), (-44.81, 34.42), (-42.71, 30.91), (-40.99, 32.8), (-37.91, 31.74), (-36.92, 33.31), (-30.64, 32.99), (-27.5, 33.73), (-25.34, 32.16), (-20.66, 31.56), (-16.47, 34.09), (-14.75, 40.46), (-9.82, 41.67), (-6.74, 44.95), (-4.34, 44.99), (-4.34, 44.99), (2.93, 46.24), (4.96, 45.18), (3.91, 42.27), (0.65, 42.22), (-0.34, 37.69), (3.85, 39.49), (3.24, 37.83), (7.3, 36.96), (6.81, 35.2), (10.32, 35.39), (11.92, 30.87), (18.7, 28.38), (18.7, 28.38), (21.53, 30.31), (25.96, 29.94), (31.81, 31.23), (31.88, 31.23), (31.81, 31.23), (31.88, 31.23), (32.12, 30.96), (32.12, 30.96), (30.4, 28.7), (34.34, 28.51), (38.53, 30.91), (40.68, 28.93), (44.44, 23.72), (50.11, 22.75), (50.05, 21.7), (48.45, 21.74), (48.2, 17.97), (51.16, 17.37), (49.68, 14.15), (54.42, 12.63), (51.28, 5.87), (50.23, 7.25), (46.04, 6.1), (40.68, 1.51), (37.91, 1.37), (37.73, -4.28), (35.26, -6.29), (37.6, -12.99), (41.48, -12.35), (42.59, -14.64), (46.23, -13.67), (52.26, -15), (53.99, -13.63), (62, -12.53), (64.64, -15.46), (70, -16.93), (70, -16.93), (73.51, -15.92), (75.42, -17.2), (79.92, -16.47), (80.47, -17.71), (81.89, -18.99), (81.89, -18.99), (84.97, -20.96), (84.97, -20.96), (84.97, -20.96), (86.88, -20.09), (90.21, -23.2), (94.39, -23.15), (96.18, -26.77), (96.18, -26.81), (96.18, -26.81), (96.18, -26.77), (97.84, -28.32), (98.46, -32.3), (94.58, -32.48), (92.61, -38.46), (88.97, -37.32), (86.63, -42.02), (86.63, -42.02), (83.8, -46.45), (82.08, -46.4), (82.88, -51.23), (85.83, -53.74), (80.35, -59.66), (85.77, -60.79), (84.23, -63.48), (86.45, -65.57), (94.33, -67.62), (94.33, -67.62)]
and the polygon2D seem to have the same bug

4

If you want to report a bug, you should report it to the github repo page for bug reports (if the bug isn’t already reported).

But regarding the issue: I guess this isn’t a bug, but just a limitation that the developer of the method has put on the algorithm. Polygon area calculations becomes extremely calculation intense operations, and IMO it’s not a suitable tool for what you want to achieve (since it’s probably get laggy on slow computers). Better to use a fast solution, for example like creating an in-memory mask and check against the mask color.

5

i see, thanks