Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Newbie Questions
by fairtrader. 12/05/23 10:32
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 12/04/23 11:34
Square root rule
by Smallz. 12/02/23 09:15
RTest not found error
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 21:43
neural function for Python to [Train]
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 14:47
Xor Memory Problem.
by TipmyPip. 11/28/23 14:23
Training with command line parameters
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:42
Combine USD & BTC Pairs In Asset Loop
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:30
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Tactics of World War I
Who's Online Now
6 registered members (AndrewAMD, alibaba, fairtrader, ozgur, TipmyPip, Quad), 604 guests, and 1 spider.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
fairtrader, hus, Vurtis, Harry5, KelvinC
19019 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
newton or default physics ? #135892
06/12/07 03:19
06/12/07 03:19
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 702
Z
zazang Offline OP
User
zazang  Offline OP
User
Z

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 702
Hi

I havent delved much into physics,so I'm going to start now.
I have a few broad questions :-

1).why are people using newton so much.I mean what are its advantages over the A6 physics ?

2).Will there be an updated A7 physics system or is it already robust,fast enough for commercial applications in A6 ?

Thanks already.

regards
zazang

Re: newton or default physics ? [Re: zazang] #135893
06/12/07 05:55
06/12/07 05:55
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,503
SC, United States
xXxGuitar511 Offline
Expert
xXxGuitar511  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,503
SC, United States
Both are excellent, but as you said they each have their pro's and cons (which may also be opinionated and sometimes wrong based on noobiness)...

- I feel that newton has more solid and accurate physics, but it's also a dll which means it has to be implemented and is not direct with 3DGS.

- -GS Physics alow polygon-precise collision

- GS is directly integrated, therefor much easier to use

- Newton sometimes has wierd results with objects at high speeds (but then gain, I think all physics systems do )


...Anyone else have any opinions?


xXxGuitar511
- Programmer
Re: newton or default physics ? [Re: xXxGuitar511] #135894
06/12/07 10:34
06/12/07 10:34
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 873
S
Shadow969 Offline
User
Shadow969  Offline
User
S

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 873
I agree, GS physics is easier to use, but Newton physics is more accurate. And it's harder to implement Newton in existing project, cause it has to be initialized correct after level is loaded

Re: newton or default physics ? [Re: Shadow969] #135895
06/12/07 10:43
06/12/07 10:43
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 7,441
ventilator Offline
Senior Expert
ventilator  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 7,441
newton has a lot more features (for example a lot more collision primitives), is a bit faster and most importantly it's robust.

with a6's physics you have to try hard to not get explosions (and it's not possible to get it fully reliable), with newton you have to try hard to cause explosions. (with explosions i mean entities which unwantedly rocket around.)

but a6's physics may be less overwhelming scripting-wise for a beginner.

Re: newton or default physics ? [Re: ventilator] #135896
06/12/07 11:22
06/12/07 11:22
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 702
Z
zazang Offline OP
User
zazang  Offline OP
User
Z

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 702
Thanks so much for the replies..I think I would weight robustness in favour of
ease of use..so this means Newton will rule my Physics coding ;-)


I like good 'views' because they have no 'strings' attached..
Re: newton or default physics ? [Re: ventilator] #135897
06/12/07 14:09
06/12/07 14:09
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 873
S
Shadow969 Offline
User
Shadow969  Offline
User
S

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 873
Quote:

newton has a lot more features (for example a lot more collision primitives)



in my version of Newton there are only 2 primitives - cube and sphere (newton v1.0)
Maybe there's another version?

Re: newton or default physics ? [Re: Shadow969] #135898
06/12/07 20:12
06/12/07 20:12
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69 Offline
Senior Expert
fastlane69  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
I'm not going to recommend one over the other but I can tell you from personal experience with A6.5 that we stack objects all the time and get no explosions. Currently 3DGS will turn off the physics engine when the object is inmobile for a certain time. Therefore if you have a stack of objects and manipulate the PE parameters so that they don't jitter, eventually the physics engine is disengaged and an explosion is impossible.

We don't use polygon collision (which can lead to nasty instabilities) and have square Bounding Box on top of each other and after a day they were still stacked. I don't think our physics engine parameter choices are unique either... just the standard settings.

Re: newton or default physics ? [Re: fastlane69] #135899
06/13/07 04:32
06/13/07 04:32
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 478
India
M
msl_manni Offline
Senior Member
msl_manni  Offline
Senior Member
M

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 478
India
It would be better to use 3DGS physics.

1. 3DGS is inbuit and there is no overhead in setting the level.
2. Sphere and Box collission work best in many cases. There is limitation in Newton where one cant even have a model as a geometry as this has not been implemented for c-script. So there is only box, sphere, and wmb objects available in Newton.
3. You can easily disable and relocate your objects to new locations and again re-enable physics.


My Specialities Limited.
Re: newton or default physics ? [Re: msl_manni] #135900
06/13/07 05:01
06/13/07 05:01
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,503
SC, United States
xXxGuitar511 Offline
Expert
xXxGuitar511  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,503
SC, United States
In newton you have more options - Sorry, I just want to argue...

1) While it is inbuilt/built-in... ok, I can't argue with you there

2) Newton offers sphere, box, and compound collisions. Compound collision will allow you to create any shape you want for an objects collision, using combinations of spheres and box's. This works great for buildings, cylinders, etc...

Setting an objects mass to 0 will make the object unmovable (for geometry). using compound collision with mass set to 0 works better for static models than 3DGS polygon collision.

3) You can do this is well with Newton


IMO - Newton is easier to use and more stable. However, it is harded to set up everything...


xXxGuitar511
- Programmer
Re: newton or default physics ? [Re: xXxGuitar511] #135901
06/13/07 06:15
06/13/07 06:15
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 478
India
M
msl_manni Offline
Senior Member
msl_manni  Offline
Senior Member
M

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 478
India
I am a noob into the physics world and dont kow either of them very well. But from my perspective and the little bit knowledge that I have attained while working with 3DGS physics, my conclusion is that it is necessary for me to have polygonal level collision for static geometry. In newton that is not yet available yet. As far as compound collision is concerned, I dont know wether #DGS is capable of it. I dont want to set up the level for every possible situatin using Compund objects as its already hard to to create a game and then to see that every thing is set using compound objects would be un-necessary overhead, and in many situations not possible to implement.

Though for dynamic objects a compund collision would be very effictive. But still I would consider 3DGS physics as a better option for me.


My Specialities Limited.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  HeelX, Spirit 

Gamestudio download | chip programmers | Zorro platform | shop | Data Protection Policy

oP group Germany GmbH | Birkenstr. 25-27 | 63549 Ronneburg / Germany | info (at) opgroup.de

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1