Wow, that sounds like a super ambitious project! I totally get the struggle with simulating physics in something as complex as a train simulator. You might want to think about blending your current approaches a bit more. Since you’re dealing with so many train cars and high speeds, maybe consider a simplified physics model for the majority of the cars while keeping more detailed physics for the ones that are close to the player or in the spotlight.

For the couplers and spring-damper mechanics, have you thought about just applying forces and constraints at a higher level rather than for each individual car? This could help reduce the CPU load. You could also implement a system where the physics updates for train cars further away are less frequent, maybe every few frames, while closer ones get updated more often.

Regarding your collision issues, could you try using a prediction-based system for collisions? Instead of having every car fully simulate physical interactions, you could predict where they should be and only fully simulate the interactions when they get close enough to each other. It might help prevent the big drops in performance you’re seeing.

And about the camera views—you could also consider a fixed camera for multiplayer views that only switches to first-person or third-person when a player is in a certain area or interacts with a certain object. This could help prioritize performance where it matters most.

Hope this helps a bit! I’m excited to see how your prototype evolves, and I bet there are many people rooting for you!

It sounds like you’re dealing with a classic issue in collision detection! The ball phasing through multiple bricks often happens when collisions are handled in a sequential manner without properly accounting for the new position of the ball after each collision. Here are a few thoughts that might help:

First off, make sure you are handling all potential collisions in a single update cycle, rather than resolving one collision and immediately moving on to the next without checking the new position. This is often referred to as the “swept collision” method where you check for all possible collisions along the path of the ball’s movement.

Here’s a simple approach you could try:

1. Before moving the ball, calculate its future position based on its speed and direction.
2. Check for all collisions that occur along that path, not just the closest one. You can do this by extending the position of the ball into the future.
3. Record all colliding objects and their respective collision sides (top, bottom, left, right).
4. After identifying all collisions, determine the minimum penetration distance for each collision, then resolve them based on the smallest penetration distance. This ensures you only resolve the most significant collisions first.

You can use an approach like this (pseudo-code):

        function updateBallPosition(ball) {
            let futurePosition = ball.position + ball.velocity;
            let collisions = checkForCollisions(futurePosition);

            if (collisions.length > 0) {
                let closestCollision = getClosestCollision(collisions);
                resolveCollision(ball, closestCollision);
            } else {
                ball.position = futurePosition;
            }
        }

        function checkForCollisions(futurePosition) {
            let collisions = [];
            for (let brick of bricks) {
                if (checkCollision(futurePosition, brick)) {
                    collisions.push(brick);
                }
            }
            return collisions;
        }

        function resolveCollision(ball, collision) {
            // Check collision type and adjust ball position accordingly
        }
    

Also, consider implementing a time-step where you can break down the movement into smaller steps within a single frame, which may help in fine-tuning the collision resolution.

Lastly, don’t hesitate to log the collision detections. Sometimes just seeing the output can shed light on what’s going wrong. Good luck, you’ve got this!

Alright, I think I figured it out (but I’m not sure, this puzzle was tricky)…

Okay, so here’s how I’m kinda seeing it based on those clues you gave:

1. Dan and Emily (the newbies—because another clue says the couple who loves colors dances after them)
2. Sam and Zoe (colors lovers—purple and orange—and they can’t be near Dan and Emily, but going second should keep them apart)
3. Leo and Mia (they can’t dance last and have to perform right before the matching outfit couple)
4. Chris and Nora (friends from salsa class who wanted to spice it up just before Ava and Jake)
5. Ava and Jake (matching outfits, always going last to wrap things up)

Does this seem right? I feel like it fits the clues, but honestly, I’m not totally sure. Hope the dancers don’t mind!