While in the process of fixing a bug with my system, I stumbled in an apparent limitation, albeit I'm not sure this limitation is real.
I cannot quite figure out whatever this problem is real or not so I figured out I'd probably ask you all.
Situation is as follows: my mesh format exports both a graphical mesh and a physics mesh. That is, each mesh resource exports a graphics and a physics mesh.
Each time the mesh is instantiated, if the instance is marked solid, a corresponding rigid body is spawned at graphical mesh location using the mesh exported physics model.
The transform used for the physics mesh is the same as the graphical mesh.
However, I am having a problem with this. It appears that under certain circumstances there might be the need to append a transform from graphical meshes to physics.
So far, this has been ignored. After all meshes are supposed to be authored "centered around the origin" and the physics mesh is assumed to match the graphics mesh.
I'm tempted to not provide this extra transform at all. I cannot quite figure out a case in which this would be needed. On the other side, I cannot really find a strong reason to not do that... besides noticing supporting this features needs some care.
Do I need to provide a graphics-to-physics transform?
It appears to me that meshes requiring this feature would be not properly authored (at least according to my current standards). But I'm not sure. Opinions welcome.