Question

Why in the world is this new syntax necessary?
(the classes RigidObject and RigidObjectConf)
It's counter-intuitive for beginners (like myself) who are reading the docs.

(scroll in the code snippets below to see the whole snippet)

https://github.com/NVIDIA-Omniverse/orbit/blob/95a4927c64578f136ea064bb33a9c704a76f8c5d/source/standalone/tutorials/01_assets/run_rigid_object.py#L63-L76

The tutorial:

https://github.com/NVIDIA-Omniverse/orbit/blob/95a4927c64578f136ea064bb33a9c704a76f8c5d/docs/source/tutorials/01_assets/run_rigid_object.rst?plain=1#L46-L62

doesn't explain the functional advantage of it over the method introduced just in the previous tutorial: spawn_prims.py,
doesn't help understand the necessity / purpose of this design over the previous method.

In other words, why not have simply this,
instead of using the RigidObject and RigidObjectCfg classes:

# Rigid Object
cone_cfg = sim_utils.ConeCfg( 
    radius=0.1, 
    height=0.2, 
    rigid_props=sim_utils.RigidBodyPropertiesCfg(), 
    mass_props=sim_utils.MassPropertiesCfg(mass=1.0), 
    collision_props=sim_utils.CollisionPropertiesCfg(), 
    visual_material=sim_utils.PreviewSurfaceCfg(diffuse_color=(0.0, 1.0, 0.0), metallic=0.2), 
)
cfg_cone_rigid.func(
    "/World/Origin.*/Cone", cfg_cone_rigid
 )

The only thing that's missing here is: init_state=RigidObjectCfg.InitialStateCfg().

But is it really the only reason to use a completely new syntax for rigid object definition?
Can't the init_state be passed into sim_utils.ConeCfg or cfg_cone_rigid.func for example?

If really the RigidObject(RigidObjectCfg) method should be used - then maybe put a warning into the spawn_prims.py tutorial, saying that rigid body created like that would be missing critical abilities?

Acceptance criteria

Either:

• The docs explain this
• API is simplified / the tutorial doesn't use the verbose method