Bullet instead of ODE

http://www.bulletphysics.com/

Please consider replacing ODE with Bullet. Bullet also is an open source physics engine (zlib license) but it is more actively developed and has more features.

ODE is kind of lacking because it only fully supports boxes and spheres as collision shapes (the rest of the ODE shapes like cylinders aren´t complete) and it isn´t really stable enough (explosions happen too often and too easily!).

Bullet at Morbius: http://www.coniserver.net/ubb7/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=202604#Post202604

Please cehck it JCL.

Yes,please consider replacing ODE with Bullet or any good physics engine

Newton would also be great. I'm not really happy with the built-in ODE-physics and vehicles. Netwon 2.0 ist WIP and it seems that it will have a lot of even more features.

Yes I would like

http://www.bulletphysics.com/Bullet/wordpress/download

and not ODE or Netwon (well maybe Netwon).

i am for newton 2.0 once it is out. the betas look awesome already. some gamestudio competitors like quest3d use newton too.

...but almost anything would be better than ODE.

I am for newton 2.0, too. i think n 2.0 would be 100 times better than the bullet physics.

What do you think about PhysX? That's the library with the biggest players behind it.

yes physx, with the cloth simulation, (also particles physx?)

I don´t really like PhysX.

I wouldn´t want to release a game which needs a 20mb physics driver. Bullet or Newton only add a few 100KB to your exe.

PhysX also is lacking in some regards. For example it also doesn´t support cylinders! Maybe because PhysX (previously Novodex) is based on the unfixable ODE? :p But now that it is owned by Nvidia maybe it will become better?



I find it really surprising that engines like Bullet and Newton aren´t very different (in some regards they even are better) to engines of the big players like Ageia or Havok. What are those teams of PhD programmers doing all day if single programmers like Erwin Coumans or Julio Jerez can compete with them?

@JCL:
Maybe physx too but, dont we need to pay for physx license if we build a commerical game(just wondering, im not gonna build a commerical game in next 20 years ) , or it's enough to Conitec have the license and implement physx in engine?

@Felixsg:
Bullet also supports cloth & wire physics.

I personally dislike PhysX for the same reason amy mentioned. Placing a .dll inside your installation folder is a much more convenient way than forcing the user to install a certain driver.

As far as I know, Microsoft is still developing a physics component for directX. Ageia was bought by nvidia, so it's possible that PhysX will be completly removed some day...

I don't like the ODE engine, too

Please don´t wait another 2 or 3 years just because it is unsure how all this CUDA and physics on the GPU stuff will turn out. A better physics solution already could be had now.

Isn´t direct physics only a rumor based on this job posting from two years ago?

No one likes ode :P
I would really favourite newton. Currently I use it and it's great to work with. + newton 2.0 will have a lot of great new features.

Newton is fast, robust, accurate and easy to use
*votes4newton*

I would like PhysX because it's NextGen and has stunning features! I guess that the support of PhysX will bring a lot of new customers for conitec ;

You can already use Newton, so it's not logical to implent it also as standard physic engine.

Dark_Samurai

@Dark_samurai: You could also use PhysX or any other pyhsics-engine if you want... that's not the point

You just have to implement it in a plugin

Ok that's right, but for beginners or even advanced users it won't be easy to make such a plugin. And the Newtonplugin is already there.
And of course it's timeconsuming! This is why gamestudio has a built in physic engine.
The only problem with PhysX is the additional installation of the physic driver (mentioned above). But I like the thought that we will be able to make use of the physX cards or even the new grafic cards with the physic processors.

Dark_Samurai

But it's hard to do, because you have to code everything from scratch to get that work... you could also use physiX in gamestudio the same way.

@topic
The big disadvantage of physiX is the size..especially for indi developers, who share their games over the internet it'd not really be a good implementation

then newton or bullet is the way.

Are any demos of professional made car physics with the bullet or newton engine to download?
I never seen some good ones, only the poor demos on the newton site.
I'm not sure if it can be done with this engines, but I really would like to see some good stuff before I decide for it.

there was a procedurally animated spider which obeyed the laws of physics thanks to Newton. it's pretty groovy.

couldn't find it just now though. youtube should be quite useful, though.

julz

Yep that was great! they used partically IK for animating. It was somewhere in newtons forum showcase

here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1P_B65XW4I

Are there any serious racing games done with PhysX? I don´t think so. Usually custom specialized driving physics engines get used for serious AAA racing games.

Which doesn´t mean that physics engines like Bullet, Newton or PhysX can´t do good car physics. On the Ogre3D website you will find some nice racing games done with Bullet and Newton. For example Tractor Cross and several Kart racing games.

The term "NextGen" is a very silly marketing thing. Almost everything is the next generation of something. Like the name says Acknex is "NextGen" too for example. :p

Bullet and Newton for sure will make use of CUDA too in the future.

What features does newton 2.0 have? I can't find any informations about it...

Dark_Samurai

the current newton version already has great features...

the main feature of 2.0 will be a new linear solver which should be at least as fast as the other popular physics engines. the old exact solver of the current version will still be around if you need it.

the linear solver will be very stable too (no explosions or jittering) just a bit more spongy (slower resolution of penetrations since it will get done over several frames instead of one frame) but every linear solver is spongy (also physx and bullet).

it also got reworked to support and scale well with multicore cpus and later stuff like CUDA.

additionally there will be refinements of current features like the vehicle joint and character controller. they will become easier to use. a physics based character animation system is planned too.

What about softbodies?
What do you mean with character controller? Do you mean Ragdoll?

Dark_Samurai

softbodies are just single bodies connected by joints...You can do that already with the current newton version and also cloth physic is possbile by that method

dx studio, imho one of the best game engine of the last generation ,switched from bullet to PhysX

This thread got continued in the voting thread by jcl and it looks like Gamestudio will also switch to PhysX. Well, I got used to the thought in the meantime and I am really looking forward to see the lacking ODE replaced. With nVidia PhysX only can become better. Maybe it will even support cylinders some day.