What causes static and dynamic objects lit differently in the same spot?

Static objects sample high-resolution lightmaps while dynamic objects sample coarse light probes, so the two systems produce different indirect values at the same location.

How do I catch this when it only happens for some players?

Capture it automatically from the player's device with the full stack trace, the device and OS, the build, and a breadcrumb trail of what they did. That turns a vague complaint into a specific, reproducible issue you can fix without owning the hardware it happens on.

How to Fix Static and Dynamic Objects Being Lit Differently in the Same Spot

Quick answer: Increase probe density where the mismatch is visible, match ambient and indirect intensity, and verify both objects use the same lighting mode and scale.

When the same crate looks wrong after you mark it dynamic, it switched from lightmaps to probes and the probe field there is too coarse to match. Densifying probes and matching intensities reconciles them.

How to fix it

1. Densify probes near the object

Add light probes tightly around the spot where static and dynamic versions diverge so the probe-sampled value approaches the baked lightmap value.

2. Match indirect intensity

Confirm Indirect Intensity and Albedo Boost are identical for the bake that feeds both lightmaps and probes; a different multiplier makes probes read brighter or darker than lightmaps.

3. Check the lightmap UV scale

A static object with a wrong lightmap scale bakes too coarse and is itself wrong; verify its texel density before blaming the dynamic version.

4. Use an anchor and rebake

Give the dynamic object a probe anchor at its center, rebake, and compare side by side at the same transform until the lighting matches.

Catching the ones you can't reproduce

The hardest version of this to fix is the one you can't reproduce — it only happens on a player's hardware, OS, driver, or save state, under conditions that simply aren't present on your machine. A report that says “it crashed” or “it froze” gives you nothing to act on, so the bug survives release after release while quietly costing you players.

Automatic error capture closes that gap. Each failure arrives with its full stack trace, the device and OS, the build number, and a breadcrumb trail of what the player did right before it broke, so even a failure you have never seen becomes a specific, reproducible issue. Fold identical failures into one signature ranked by how many players each hits, and your worklist sorts itself worst-first instead of arriving as a stream of vague complaints.

This is where a tool like Bugnet earns its place. Its SDK captures every error automatically with the full stack trace plus device, OS, memory, build, and game-state context, folds duplicates into one grouped issue with an occurrence count, and ties each to the build it first appeared on — so you fix the problem that hurts the most players first and confirm it is gone when its signature disappears from the next release.

Ship the fix, watch the signature disappear from the next build. That's how you know it's really gone.