Get Bounce above 100%: HOW?

[Deeeds]

The maximum value of bouncing properties are limited to 100%, on both objects involved in a collision.

Unfortunately this doesn't result in a 200% bounce ;)

Is it possible to get bounces with more energy than 100%?

[Aidan_Fire]

@Deeeds Yes, but it’s not super simple like just setting bounce to 200%. You’d have to do it manually probably using Sine and Cosine functions (only needed if walls are on lots of different angles). Something like collided with bouncy wall, get velocity, multiply x and y velocity by -2, set velocity to new values (which would actually end up completely reversing direction with double speed).

[Deeeds]

@Aidan-Oxley I've just realised the least of my problems is the bouncing force...

This might give you an idea of the problem I'm trying to solve:

Without compound physics objects, or any kind of hierarchal linking/relationships, building one of these doesn't even ensure the other is the same.

[Deeeds]

@Aidan-Oxley Just figured out an easier way:

Do a "Stopped Colliding" from the bouncy material to the object that's bouncing, get the velocity of the bouncing object (ball), then multiply the X and Y values by the desired amount, then set the velocity of the ball accordingly.

It's not perfect, has a few bugs under heavy usage and fast happenings.

If I knew how to invert numbers I could do it on the initial collision, but this reports the incoming velocity, hence the need to invert the values.

[Jack8680]

@Deeeds interesting, never realised there was a limit on bounce. I'd set the bounce to 100% and then use 'collided' with 'get velocity' and multiply it by whatever multiplier you want on your bounce, then use set velocity. You might have to delay the behaviours a tick if the bounce doesn't happen before the get velocity activates.

Edit: your reply appeared after I pressed submit 😐

[Deeeds]

@Jack8680 said in Get Bounce above 100%: HOW?:
Yeah, it's an odd restriction, not having higher values for bounce. It's in every physics engine, but someone must have gotten "safety conscious" and decided against surfacing it to users. Could come with a warning. I'll "file" another feature request. Shouldn't have to use unreliable get and sets to increase bounciness.