First of all, hello everybody.

Long time no see around here, but I´m still alive.

I want to know if there is someone using newton wrapper at the moment for some project ( speccialy vehicle ones )

I want to get back to using 3DGS, now that the life calm down.

Anyway, would be happy in keep in touch with you 3DGS users.

Cheers from Mexico.

Hi Carloos, just got back myself...

In randomly cruising thru various Dev forums, I quite often come across reference to Newton and folks who are still using it but I dont remeber which forums they were.
Still, they were all Game Dev related so perhaps unity, GameDev,Digital Tutors or Lynda.com might throw up something usefull....(only ones I can remember at the moment)

Hi Nems

Thats a lot of time I dont use 3DGS or newton or any other engine. I had a bad time today trying to work at newton 2.0 wrapper.
Its like to begin from zero again.
Would be nice to have a template with already a basic newton car example already set.
Next days will be searching researching and decinding if I will stick again with 3DGS or see if something else is an option.

Nobody else ?????

Emre just posted his game, he is using A7 with Newton.

Well, I used it for a very old game.
What is your problem? I didnt get it right I think.
My old wrapper is working^^

Also what engine could be an option?
Unity is for noobs who need an Interface ^^
I love 3DGS, JCL just needs to work on the WED instead of Zorro and 3DGS will be nice. Also if we get DirectX11 support this engine will get more popular

by the way, is Newtone better than NVidia PhysX? (I did some tests with PhysX, but never used Newton)

Well, it depends...
I liked both but both also had errors.
So, PhysX is built in and due to this fact much better with events.
But newton has got less "bugs" on the main physics, so things dont actually pass the walls and I think the physics itself feels a little bit more real.
But all in all PhysX wins this fight because its built in

Newton game dynamics is a very cool physics sdk
in my oppinion , but hard to get everything wrapped for easy coding if your planning to do it yoyrself , i did my own newton implimentation along with scythe physics editor way back
into the irrlicht engine , i loved the physics and all
the possibilities it overed but when it comes to
time and eas of coding i guess physx is better as mentioned
Unless there is an existing wrapper wich offers
ease of use also

Oh, nice to see some life signals

Ch40zzC0d3r :

I also used it ( at 1.53 newton version ) for an old racing "game". I had problems at high speeds, cars roll very easy, so it was like impossible to achieve a racing speed and roll at high speed turns. I tweaked everything, no sucess in achieve something realistic.
Then I saw a vídeo ( that I dont find anymore ) from the Newton 2.0 and was a Indycar, and the speeds were very high with no roll problem at turns at all.

Sivan :

I second the other ones opinion. PhysX seems to be nice for being built in. But for racing games isnt that nice. Same roll or irreal that I had at Newton 1.53.

I got VeT´s Newton 2.x wrapper, but I´m having a bad time trying to make it work. NO collisions at all, no Physics at all. In the first sample of the wrapper, balls simply fall down and nothing happens. In the map101 ( vehicle ) example, the car also falls, the tyres dont stick to the car, and It gaves me lots of errors.

Thats a lot of time I dont use 3DGS, it´s being hard to understand what´s wrong.

Besides this, I´m thinking about begin using Ogre, thats far far more difficult to use. But I dont know If I will really spend a lot of time on it.

I like the 3DGS thing, and would love to stick with it.

I hope someone with more experience in Newton can help me in some way.