koobas.hobune.stream
Errors with FireComplex from Standard Assets in Unity 5.3
Hi to all,
When I try to use the FireComplex prefab I get several errors at runtime, as follows: 
Any idea how to fix these problems? Best Regards,
This is very silly, but the way to fix it is to make sure the particle system object has no rotation in its transform component. It also cannot be a child of a rotated object. This goes for all particle systems that use the world simulation space.
UPDATE: ALL particle systems, including child systems need a zeroed rotation or need to be in local simulation space.
Thanks @Graphics_Dev for your answer. However, I´m not rotating the FireComplex instance... In fact, the error can be reproduced by just adding this object to an empty scene, and running such scene. The FireComplex´es transform is p(0,0,0), r(0,0,0), s(1,1,1), and still I get the errors...
Any help is really appreciated...
I just tried it with the fire complex prefab, and yes it imports with the parent particle system correctly, but the children have 90 degree rotations. All particle systems need no rotation. BTW AABB stands for axially aligned bounding box. You can google this if you want to learn more about why particle systems can't have rotation.
Perfect @Graphics_Dev! Solved! Thanks a lot! ;)
This is a known bug that was fixed in 5.3.1p1.
(755423) - Particles: Fixed error message spam on particle systems that have no particles (5.3.1 regression).
That is not the error. The issue is with rotated particle systems, not particle systems without particles ;)
There is no restrictions on particles being rotated. When rotated we convert the local bounds into a world aligned aabb. If rotation is causing problems then its a bug. That said we have a lot of fixes for particles in next weeks patch and they include significant changes to how we handle the aabb internally.
Gotcha. We had this problem with a game a few weeks ago, and I fixed it (by not rotating particle systems), thinking it was a deprecated feature to improve performance. Not having to continue recalculating the axially aligned bounding box, sounded like a decent optimization ;)
