Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

Excavator simulation

Discussion in 'Made With Unity' started by Jean-Fabre, Nov 12, 2010.

  1. ikelaiah

    ikelaiah

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2013
    Posts:
    154
    Hi Jean,

    I did a similar setup, but I used boxes. I used configurable joints all over the place. When I attach colliders, whether it be boxes or meshes, my joint starts to spring/wiggle around. I'm somewhat puzzled here. I have no overlapping collider objects. Thanks for sharing. I wonder what went wrong.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2014
  2. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
    Hi,

    I think you are typically facing a different problem, colliders shape is not the issue here, it's your physics setup.

    -- Physics settings solver iteration is too low ( I go up to 100 for ultra stiff simulation)
    -- Time settings "fixed time step" may be tweaked too: I have set it to 0.005 ( and maximum allowed timestep set to 0.05)

    This will definitly improve the situation, else you simply have inconsistent forces definitions.

    Bye,

    Jean
     
  3. ikelaiah

    ikelaiah

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2013
    Posts:
    154
    Hi Jean,

    Thanks for the suggestion. The wobbling joint was rectified after setting the fixed time as 0.05.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2014
  4. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
    Hi,

    Very good. Also if you plan on distributing in various platform, make sure you test and tweak, I witness differences between windows and mac platform for example, I had to use different values to achieve the same result ( oddly enough...)

    Bye,

    Jean
     
  5. Kaz_Yamof

    Kaz_Yamof

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Posts:
    28
    Amazing!
    I work with Unity for a 3D client of a mine, and I tried to use joints on our machines in the past without success.
    But how elevation and slewing values are given by a server, we decided to use animations on 3ds with bones instead physics simulation, just making a simple interpolation between angle value and animation time.
    I will try to simulate again with your tips now.
    Great work!
     
  6. t0xic0m

    t0xic0m

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2014
    Posts:
    12
    Hello,
    first thanks for sharing the Simple Hinge Demo.
    But i´ve got some Problems with setup from other AngularMotions. The AngularMotionX works very well, but other AngularMotions doesn't work. I need the Y Axis to Rotate a Crane but i can´t fixed the Problem yet. Anyone idea how i can fixed my Problem?
    Greetz
     
  7. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
    Thanks :)
     
  8. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
    You have to rearrange your transform axis so that it's always the X axis that you control as an hinge. that's the trick, my whole rig is always making sure the rotating axis is "x" ( even the link between the tracks and the body)

    otherwise it's messy, I also experienced that. I think it may be internal to the physics engine because you'll not that Y and Z do not get the same treatment for limits as the X axis, so there's something here odd, why not giving the same limits features on all axis?!?

    Bye,

    Jean
     
  9. ikelaiah

    ikelaiah

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2013
    Posts:
    154
    Actually, at some point I used other axis than x for hinge rotation and I had no problem with it. One important point, as long as I remember to switch from velocity drive mode to position drive mode when done moving the joint.

    But, since x offers lower and upper limits, I try my best to have x-axis as the hinge rotation axes.

    Thanks,
    ikelaiah
     
  10. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
    Hi,

    Yep, you are right, switching to "position" drive will prevent drifts under it's own weight. The joint setup behavior I created is doing exactly that under the hood. Someone suggested some time ago to actually simply replace the joint with a fixed joint, which I think could add even more stability on very complex rigs, but if you don't experience any "explosion" effect on your rig, then you are good. Watch out for when some of the joints are on either limit, I found that it was not stable, especially on mobile, it would crash the app, bu I would worry about this only if you actuall go for mobile and/or experience crashes.

    Bye,

    Jean
     
  11. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
    Hi Everyone,

    This project reached 20K unique visitors since its launch in 2010! and I wanted to thank you all for your comments, public and private on this project, as my very first project in Unity, I am pleased to see it went ok :)

    upload_2014-11-21_15-42-19.png

    What amazes me is the shape of the curve!! It's not just due to the topic itself I must admit, but actually to the growth of the Unity community, the number of views is in average ten times greater on a daily bases now then when I first launched it or when I made posts that bumped this thread in the first page of the thread section. Incredible in just 4 years (the curve actually show it really started 2 years ago).

    No real plan to make an update unfortunatly, I just don't have the time, I have to be realistic... but as Unity 5 has a brand new physics, I am tempted to make a comparision :)

    Bye,

    Jean
     
  12. justaddice83

    justaddice83

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Posts:
    45
    Thanks again Jean for your help here, and it will be interesting to see how much the physics model changes in Unity 5.

    Just to share back my discoveries related to this type of project:

    For the tracks I used AddRelativeForce with force type of Impulse on each track rather than multiple wheel colliders. I found that by just adding force worked out much better for realistic movement, and turn on the spot works well with it too. Then used some code to detect speed and collision with ground to control the visual track movement.
     
  13. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
    Hi,

    Whell Colliders aren't working properly out of the box indeed. I never use them, this excavator has actually cylinders with configurable joints, and they are controlled with the same system as the arms :)

    but, yeah, I anyway don't like much my current track behavior, it works ok-ish but not as good as I would like it to behave you can feel it's fighting to turn on the spot... I'll try your tip on my next attempt. Do you have some demo I can look to see your track behavior? I would be interested to get a feeling of it.

    Bye,

    Jean
     
  14. ikelaiah

    ikelaiah

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2013
    Posts:
    154
    With that setup, your track might have difficulty of navigating on a rough/uneven terrain. If you are moving on a smooth surface that's fine. I could be mistaken on this. Wheel collider, as per Unity 4.5.x, is strange. There is no collision on the front and rear side of the wheel. I still prefer using cylinders with ConJo components.
     
  15. pupazzoinfame

    pupazzoinfame

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Posts:
    3
    Hello
    I'm trying to make a simulation similar to yours as a final project for a university exam and I have tons of problems about the arm movements...may I ask you some questions about how you handle those stuffs???

    Thank you very much

    Davide
     
  16. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
    Hi,

    ok, have you gone through this thread? I have attached in an earlier post a package featuring the component that I use for all joints, including track wheels. Have a go at this.

    else, what are the actual difficulties you encounter?

    Bye,

    Jean
     
  17. pupazzoinfame

    pupazzoinfame

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Posts:
    3
    You mean the package with the 4 cubes and 2 physics assets?
    yes I'm looking at it right now but when i Play it, unity says that i must fix compiling errors......so I'm just studying the two scripts in monodevelop.
    Now my biggest difficulty.....i was trying to make a chain of hinge joints (arm-boom-bucket) and make it work right...but i noticed you used Configurable joints......so I'm gonna use your approach and make some more attempts!
    I'll write you as soon as I'll figure out something more

    Thank you very much

    Davide
     
  18. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
    Ah, ok, yeah, this package is quite old, I'll have a look. Please bump me towards end of week if you haven't heard back, thanks :)

    Configurable Joint is the key :)

    but, I would check Final IK, it's a very powerful IK system available on the asset store, you may get some really fast results with this, as opposed to using configurablejoints.

    https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/content/14290

    Bye,

    Jean
     
  19. pupazzoinfame

    pupazzoinfame

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Posts:
    3
    unity sais that the problem is in this line of the pivotjontbuilder

    var pivotDrive = master_GO.AddComponent.<pivot drive>();

    i don't understand .<pivot drive> and I didn't find any hint on the unity guide about it :(
    thanks
    Davide
     
  20. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
    Hi,

    Yeah. Give me few days to rewrite this in c# fully, and compatible with Unity 5. Please bump end of week if you haven't heard back :)

    Bye,

    Jean
     
  21. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
    Ok,

    Unfortunatly, in the process of porting the code to Unity 5, I think I found a bug with the configurable joints which makes it impossible yet to work on Unity 5. I have reported a bug with a repro ( the same scene and code works on u4, but not on u5), so hopefully, a fix will be provided in the next patches.

    I have attached the package anyway, cause it actually works on U4, and is on paper compatible with U5 ( code wise, the api has changed between u4 and u5, and the code take that into account).

    Bye,

    Jean
     

    Attached Files:

    mgear likes this.
  22. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
  23. samAsQ

    samAsQ

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2015
    Posts:
    7
    Hi Jean,

    I been have enjoyed following your project and it has been an inspiration for my own. I admire you still responding after many years!

    With the release of unity 5.2 the bug you logged has now been fixed and your simple joint demo works as intended. However as you mentioned somewhere above the joints are still randomly crashing out when reaching their limits. It does this without error in the console, the pivotdrive just refuses to respond. Do you have any idea why this might be? I will be examining your classes and trying to create my own but a point to what might be the problem would be helpful.

    Thanks,
    Sam
     
  24. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
    Hi Sam,

    Yep, I noticed this too... the fix is effective in itself, but I think the internal engine code has changed a lot and so it behaves differently. I haven't been able to pin point the exact problem, and I'll have to start from scratch again it seems...

    So your suggestion is good indeed. I would however study the possibility to switch to a fixed joint when not controlling it, it could be easier to setup and control this way.

    Bye,

    Jean
     
  25. samAsQ

    samAsQ

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2015
    Posts:
    7
    Thankyou for your reply. I will be stepping through your simulation soon and trying to create an up to date version, when I find the problem with the joints stopping responding I will share what I find here. This thread has been a great source of knowledge in my journey and I would like it to continue for others approaching this subject.

    For anyone else trying to make an excavator in unity, I found this asset to be very helpful in creating real physics tracks for the machines.
    https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/content/13351

    Thanks,
    Sam
     
  26. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
    Hi,

    That's the spirit :) that's why I started this thread indeed.


    Bye,

    Jean
     
  27. MS80

    MS80

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2014
    Posts:
    346
    Hi, really great thread!

    I need something like this, not that detailed, but I need to animate / pose about 10 excavators in my scene.

    What would be the easiest way to pose / animate a excavtor with hydraulics without physics? My main problem are the hydraulics, I would like to animate / pose the arms in the editor (not while runtime), is this even possible in the editor?

    I am working with Unity 5.3 and have FinalIK.

    Really, any help / hint is welcome! Many thanks in advance!
     
  28. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
    Hi,

    Yeah, and for this you don't need any physics, so it's actually very simple.

    Don't pull tricked by my rig. All "hydraulics" are secondary interactive animations, they are not the actuators. the pistons and sleeves are simply looking at each other ( a simple two way "lookat") which then gives the impression of a real piston action :)

    So for your setup, of course you can, and Final IK is definitly awesome, and will provide everything you need to achieve pose for your excavators during editing.

    Bye,

    Jean
     
  29. MS80

    MS80

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2014
    Posts:
    346
    Checked out your "PistionKinematic" script, exactly what I needed!
    Thanks for sharing and thanks for pointing out the details!

    Unfortunatly Final IK only works in "Play" mode.
     
  30. samAsQ

    samAsQ

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2015
    Posts:
    7
    Hi Jean,

    After playing around with joints in unity for a couple of days I have come to the conclusions physics joints in unity 5 are still very unstable and have to be hacked in ugly ways to make work. Here are my findings with your simple rig.

    Your approach of switching joint drive modes to position to 'lock' the joints when not moving is great, but in unity 5 random crashes still occur when switching between joint drive modes whilst the joint is moving. The issue with the mathf.infinity values applied to the dampening springs has been fixed, however the issue is now that the joint does not like to change drive mode whilst running. The physics simulation either returns {NaN,NaN,NaN} as position or a floating point error in the transform and the object disappears. I tested this many ways round and all were the same, joints seem fine in one mode or another but switching between the 2 at runtime still reliably crashes.

    As an aside unity have replaced JointDriveMode.Position with JointDriveMode.PositionandVelocity, and requires you to pass it a velocity which it uses to calculate the speed in which to move to the desired position. Also, another issue I came across is that when you stop applying force to a rigidbody unity optimizes it and sends it to sleep, and it stops responding to applied forces. The way around that is to use the rigidbody.wakeup() method once every frame that you are moving the joint in order for it to keep responding to control. I also moved your code from the Update function to the FixedUpdate function, as I found that I was getting wildly different physics simulations on different systems and platforms. Unity advises locating all physics code in the FixedUpdate function, and now I am getting much more consistent results across different PCs

    I also tried a different way, and used hinge joints for each part of the arm and scripted fixed joints which are created and destroyed when the hinge moves and stops. This works well, however again the hingejoints are buggy and the motors which drive them in unity currently only work in positive angles. This means that to give power to the hinge in the reverse direction the hinge first needs to be spun 180 degrees, or in this case to apply a negative to the hinge y axis before applying velocity value. My system which creates and destroys the fixed joints on top of the spinning hinge works well with minimal 'wobbly' joints, and is my preferred solution for my game.

    However, I decided to apply the fixed joint solution to your simple rig configurable joint solution and see if the same principle worked. Indeed it did, and I have attached an updated version of your rig for people to examine. This should work with no modification on unity 5.2+ and demonstrates both your solution of building and driving configurable joints at runtime, with my fixed joint solution locking the joints when control is released. WASD is required to apply force to the 2 joints in the demo, and I have given each cube a mass of 100 to demonstrate stability at load.

    The general buggyness and instability of physics joints in unity is very disappointing, and I hope that it is improved in near future releases of unity. Until then I will be using my system of hinges to drive my diggers. I will try and upload a web demo of my digger in action soon so you can see how it feels.

    Sam
     

    Attached Files:

    t0xic0m likes this.
  31. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
    Hi,

    Excellent, thanks for your input!

    I'll check if I can apply this back to my simulator and provide a working version using Unity 5!

    Bye,

    Jean
     
  32. t0xic0m

    t0xic0m

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2014
    Posts:
    12
    Hello,

    with Unity 5.3.0 the "Simple_Rig2" dosen´t work. Anyone a idea to fix that?
     
  33. samAsQ

    samAsQ

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2015
    Posts:
    7
    Sorry guys, again unity have just released another update which changes the way joints work again and breaks all of our code so now my simple_rig2 script doesnt work anymore. I find this ridiculous that we should all have to change our code every couple of weeks because Unity cant get something right, so I have moved to Unreal where things are much more stable. If I get time I will update the simple rig project just to help people out, but it will not be for a few days. Chances are I will fix it and unity will release another version which breaks it anyway :(
     
  34. sergey_kzn

    sergey_kzn

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2014
    Posts:
    1
    Hello,
    It is horrible, that Unity breaks physics at each release. Solution to set Infinity damper and Zero spring in JointDrive structure, instead setting JointDriveMode. That is JointDriveMode.None equals to setting zero damper and spring. JointDriveMode.Position - zero damper and infinity spring. JointDriveMode.Velosity - infinity damper and zero spring. JointDriveMode.PositionAndVelosity - infinity damper and infinity spring.
    I hope that it help someone. Sorry for my english =)
     
  35. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
    Hi sergey_kzn

    Thanks for sharing your knowledge on this, indeed Unity 5 introduced a update of the physics engine that is mostly incompatible with Unity 4.

    Bye,

    Jean
     
  36. DeepMotionPhysics

    DeepMotionPhysics

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Posts:
    243
  37. dansav

    dansav

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Posts:
    510
    How do I get the configurable joint to spin with an angularVelocity in 5.3. In 4.7 I used to set targetAngularVelocity and JointDriveMode to velocity. But now it doesn't work anymore.
     
  38. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
  39. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
    Hi,

    yeah, it changed in Unity 5 and I haven't spent time on trying to figure out how to control configurable joints within Unity 5 yet. sorry :)

    Bye,

    Jean
     
  40. dansav

    dansav

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Posts:
    510
    sergey_kzn: Your tricks worked. Thanks. How did you figure this out?
     
  41. Michcio174

    Michcio174

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2015
    Posts:
    4
    Fist of all - thank you very much Jean and samAsQ. Jean for this thread - updating it and answering questions. And Sam for sample that inspired me to use fixed joints and was a basis for further investigation.

    In our project we try to recreate a truck-mounted crane in Unity 5.6. We tried moving it using transforms, but that interfered with logs it was carrying which were rigidbodies. They were bouncing weirdly and going through geometry. It turns out transforms are calculated independently from physics and this can cause collides to intersect and jitter.

    So we switched to configurable joints and applying forces to them and oh boy, what a ride that was! The joints were locked in all but one desired axis but nevertheless wobbled and spun a bit in all of them. As if parts were joined by chewing gum. With multiple joints in the crane, it was unrealistic and at times completely uncontrollable.

    I also initially tried to use hinge joints and was unable to stop them. It was because when a joint is on a part that is on another joint and that another joint starts spinning it somehow affects the "angle" parameter of the first joint. Therefore I couldn't stop the joint by setting the "Target Position" to "angle" as angle value was unreliable.

    Then I stumbled upon this thread and found that using configurable joints and dynamically creating fixed joints is a great way to instantly stop rotation of joint which solved one problem. However joints were still wobbly as MODE IS NOW DEPRECIATED IN UNITY 5.6 even though documentation says it is not. I guess in right mode the wobbling was not a problem. After weeks of searching I discovered that collider shape was affecting the wobbling and that led me there:
    https://forum.unity3d.com/threads/collider-affects-hinge-joint.156502/
    You can read my post there, but in short: RigidBody.inertiaTensor and centerOfMass are calculated from collider shape unless they are explicitly set in the script. And setting inertiaTensor to high value stabilizes wobbling.

    What I also found:
    -setting maximum force of joint drive does not appear to change a thing
    -the force responsible for spinning the joint is now the damper force
    -infinite damper force breaks the joint and makes it and connected bodies disappear
    -in Unity 5.6 you don't need to wake up the rigidbodies.

    So after a lot of refactoring and modifications find enclosed the two scripts originally posted by samAsQ that are a modification of Jean's scripts. They work perfectly good in 5.6 and should work upwards from 5.4 (I believe this was when the physics changed). You just slap the builder on the connected rigidbody, give it the master rigidbody and it creates a joint between them and adds drive script.

    I should be writing a tutorial blog...
    Anyway, the Unity physics are just a mess. Seemingly simple thing resulted in days upon days of work, frustration and searching. The engine is buggy, the documentation is messy, incomplete and overly brief, the editor is problematic and sometimes you just don't know what to put into google. AND NO 3D PHYSICS IMPROVEMENTS ARE LISTED IN THE UNITY ROADMAP! It still boggles my mind that such a gigantic mess is one of the leading game engines for small developers. The amount of swet required if you are not planning to buy paid extensions is unbearable! Now when will I hear "physics" as part of features in next project I'll be ready to sell my own soul to use UE4.
     

    Attached Files:

  42. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
    Hi,

    excellent! thanks for all these informations and updates. I guess it's time for me to make a webgl version of this excavator following your new findings!

    I would not be too harsh on Unity, I think they are in a tricky situation with nVidia, maybe nVidia doesn't want to commit in opening/explaning properly their engine so that Unity Engineer can work properly, they are likely in the same foggy understanding as we are... at least that's the impression I get everytime I tried to get support on this, it's clear they don't know more than we do from the nvidia engine, they simply port their Api, and that's it.

    I actually developped this simulator with Adobe Director in 2008-09 with the intel 3d engine, and they had the nvidia physics engine, the SAME as Unity at the time, yet the simulation stability inside Director was ABSOLUTLY perfect, I still have the exe in some old disk to prove this, while Unity totally wobbles and explodes with multi joints, and the only difference I could see was how Unity and Adobe exposes the simulation parameters, not the joints, the rigidbodies or colliders, I think it fails to work properly because of the integration more than the api itself, which indicates the lack of in depth understanding.

    but still, I think this kind of rigs isn't the norm for sure as Unity wasn't designed for simulators but games, and while we can do simulators indeed, it's clearly geared towards game development with physics requirements that are different from simulators, where you fiddle with it more than want accuracy and real numbers everywhere

    Bye,

    Jean
     
  43. Michcio174

    Michcio174

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2015
    Posts:
    4
    Thank you for reply, Jean. :)

    Well, I learned now that in Unity it is best to go for realistic feel in physics based simulations, not for real numbers, forces and dimensions. And I agree, I was too harsh on Unity. I wrote previous post on the same day I finally nailed the solution. The need to rant on Unity was equally strong as the need to share the knowledge. I guess physics in Unity are in most cases best as an addition to the gamepady, not a core part. It is not a simulation engine. Thank you for insights, I think I understand the situation better now.

    However I really wish they fixed integration or at least the documentation. I believe that insisting that a depreciated parameter is not depreciated is not excusable. And some tips pointing to parameters I spent days searching would be nice. I would appreciate more a smaller suite of functionalities that are well implemented than more functionalities that are buggy.
     
  44. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
    Hi,

    I do wish integration was proper indeed, don't get me wrong on this neither... I did swear at the computer many many times too :) it would be better if integration and documentation got some attention :) no excuses about this.

    I do know someone that seems to have mastered Unity and physics integration to the point where he was actually using proper forces, numbers, dimensions for true simulation ( I mean, truly understanding all the complex physics equations and put them to use when applying forces and torques). I can put you in touch, maybe he would be ok to share some of his experience.

    Bye,

    Jean
     
  45. Michcio174

    Michcio174

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2015
    Posts:
    4
    Unity is frustrating at times.
    Your colleague skills are impressive and it is very nice of you to offer this contact. However current solution satisfies me and the and of the semester is upon us. But if we will develop the project further and will need help, I'll contact you. Thank you once again!
     
  46. pezz

    pezz

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Posts:
    606
    Legit (y)
     
  47. Mehran79

    Mehran79

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2017
    Posts:
    2
  48. DeepMotionPhysics

    DeepMotionPhysics

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Posts:
    243
  49. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
    Hi,

    yes, dropbox public feature was removed... I updated the link on the post you can get it here as well

    Mind you it's for Unity 4.x only

    Bye,

    Jean
     
    Mehran79 likes this.
  50. Jean-Fabre

    Jean-Fabre

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    429
    Hi,

    Yes, I noticed your engine :) will definitly give it a go when the need will arise, I don't have time right now unfortunatly...

    Bye,

    Jean