Child nodes with visibility code in an attachment flicker when hiding the attach_to_node

Version: 1.6.13.0

Frequency: Once/Rarely/Frequently/Consistently

Severity: High

Context: In Project Editor and Community folder

Bug description:

We commonly use visibility code on the attach_to_node used by an attachment to live swap various configuration options on our aircraft. This is convenient because we don’t have to worry about interfering with the visibility logic of child nodes, as the logic is outside of the attachment’s hierarchy. We then often use visibility code directly on child nodes in the attachment itself to control more options specific to the attachment.

In SU4, if the attach_to_node visibility code returns 1, but the child node returns 0, the child node will flicker. In SU3 and previous versions, this did not happen.

With this bug, we would now have to change our node hierarchy, and also overly complicate our visibility logic, duplicating what would normally be one single check across many nodes.

I’ll be completely honest, we’ve exhausted all our own debugging options on this over the last two weeks - we’d be hugely appreciative if someone with access to the code that is responsible for visibility could check if there’s been any recent changes in SU4 that may have caused this - and if it’s an intention change, what would be the best approach on our side to work with the new functionality?

Repro steps:

Repro for this has been quite difficult. It doesn’t happen on every flight load, and it also seems to happen at a random distance and camera direction. I have tried making a simplified project to demonstrate it, but have been unable to recreate it.

2 Likes

Hello,

For your video, did you spawn directly on the runway? Which aircraft variant / options did you use?
Could you send us your package please ? See 3) Provide Private Content

Regards,
Boris

Hello @HughesMDflyer4,

I was able to replicate the issue and logged the bug.
I will let you know when I have some news to share about this.

Regards,
Boris

4 Likes

I assume a fix for this didn’t make it into the release of SU4?

1 Like

I don’t believe it did. We had to spend time to develop an unfortunately poor performant work-around for the issue.

1 Like