Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Help with plotting multiple ZigZag
by degenerate_762. 04/30/24 23:23
M1 Oversampling
by 11honza11. 04/30/24 08:16
Trading Journey
by howardR. 04/28/24 09:55
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 04/27/24 13:50
Data from CSV not parsed correctly
by jcl. 04/26/24 11:18
Why Zorro supports up to 72 cores?
by jcl. 04/26/24 11:09
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
The Bible Game
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Who's Online Now
4 registered members (7th_zorro, degenerate_762, AndrewAMD, ozgur), 774 guests, and 0 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
firatv, wandaluciaia, Mega_Rod, EternallyCurious, howardR
19050 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rating: 5
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Which physics engine do you want for Gamestudio? #204257
04/28/08 09:25
04/28/08 09:25
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl Offline OP

Chief Engineer
jcl  Offline OP

Chief Engineer

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
Some day we'll go to replace the current ODE engine, but with which one? Please take a minute to fill in the poll. Thank you.

What is the physics engine of your choice?
single choice
Votes accepted starting: 04/28/08 09:25
Re: Which physics engine do you want for Gamestudio? [Re: jcl] #204258
04/28/08 09:45
04/28/08 09:45
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 337
V
Vadim647 Offline
Senior Member
Vadim647  Offline
Senior Member
V

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 337
I vote for bullet, because it start lagging only on 3000 boxes and isn't 20mb size. Newer PhysX. Personaly, I hate when with 5mb game comes 20mb driver. It's quite annoying. Newton 2 is no need because it's easy used by plugin. Waiting for Microsoft to release some physics - <lol>, have you seen their Microsoft Physics Illustrator? It's poor and lagged.


I switched to other account since marth 2010. Guess which.
Re: Which physics engine do you want for Gamestudio? [Re: Vadim647] #204261
04/28/08 09:57
04/28/08 09:57
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,210
Ä°stanbul, Turkey
Quad Online
Senior Expert
Quad  Online
Senior Expert

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,210
Ä°stanbul, Turkey
I dont know how licensing will work but Havoc will be released soon. It is more powerful than physx(imo) and doesnt need a driver.

As in the listed ones, i also voted for the Bullet.


edit: then i want to switch my vote from bullet to physx.

Last edited by Quadraxas; 04/30/08 09:53.

3333333333
Re: Which physics engine do you want for Gamestudio? [Re: Quad] #204262
04/28/08 10:18
04/28/08 10:18
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 27
Turkey
Realplayer_07 Offline
Newbie
Realplayer_07  Offline
Newbie

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 27
Turkey
Newton 2 Please

Re: Which physics engine do you want for Gamestudio? [Re: Realplayer_07] #204289
04/28/08 14:36
04/28/08 14:36
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 41
Core Offline
Newbie
Core  Offline
Newbie

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 41
 Originally Posted By: Realplayer_07
Newton 2 Please


same \:D

Re: Which physics engine do you want for Gamestudio? [Re: Core] #204293
04/28/08 14:58
04/28/08 14:58
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 681
Massachusetts, USA
Ichiro Offline
User
Ichiro  Offline
User

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 681
Massachusetts, USA
Just some info about each (from various sources), since I had no clue about them:

PhysX:
 Quote:
PhysX can refer either to a proprietary realtime physics engine middleware SDK developed by AGEIA (formerly known as the NovodeX SDK) or their PPU expansion card designed to accelerate that SDK. Only games that use the PhysX SDK can benefit from the presence of a PhysX card. Games using the PhysX SDK can be accelerated by either a PhysX PPU or a CUDA enabled GeForce GPU.

Sony has licensed the PhysX SDK for their PlayStation 3 video game console.

The PhysX engine and SDK is freely available for Windows and Linux systems, but hardware acceleration only currently works on Windows.

In February 2008, nVidia bought AGEIA and the PhysX engine and is integrating it into its CUDA framework, which already has multiple drivers for Linux. With Intel's cancellation of Havok FX, PhysX on CUDA is currently the only available solution for effect physics processing on a GPU.

Newton 2:
 Quote:
Newton Game Dynamics is a free, but closed source physics engine for realistically simulating rigid bodies in games and other real-time applications. In contrast to most other real-time physics engines it goes for accuracy over speed. Its solver is deterministic and not based on traditional LCP or iterative methods. The advantages are that it can handle higher mass ratios (up to 400:1) and the simulation is very robust and easy to tune. The disadvantage is that it is a bit slower than physics engines with an iterative solver.

Many non-commercial, commercial and academic projects use Newton Game Dynamics. It is a popular choice in the Irrlicht and OGRE communities.

Bullet:
 Quote:
Bullet is a professional open source multi-threaded 3D Collision Detection and Rigid Body Dynamics Library. It is free for commercial use under the ZLib license.

The library is being used by several professional game developers on PC, PlayStation 3, XBox 360 and Nintendo Wii.

Sony Computer Entertainment provides a parallel SPU optimized version, and collaborations with IBM, Intel, AMD and NVidia to exploit their parallel hardware.

Bullet is native part of Blender 3D modeler and it supports COLLADA Physics file format.

Given that nVidia is now tossing mad money at Physx development, I think that'd be the way to go. They're integrating it into their PPUs (and, should it become a de facto standard, it'll ultimately work well with other PPUs). It's also being used in a number of high-profile titles such as Medal of Honor: Airborne, Unreal Tournament 3, GRAW, etc.

But the three engines are all probably pretty decent for general purpose.


Dejobaan Games - Bringing you quality video games for over 75 years.
Re: Which physics engine do you want for Gamestudio? [Re: Ichiro] #204301
04/28/08 16:08
04/28/08 16:08
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 353
A
amy Offline
Senior Member
amy  Offline
Senior Member
A

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 353
The PhysX driver requirement is unacceptable. Otherwise I wouldn´t mind PhysX either even if it is overhyped in my opinion. I hope nVidia will solve this differently in the future.

Re: Which physics engine do you want for Gamestudio? [Re: amy] #204305
04/28/08 16:20
04/28/08 16:20
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 175
Germany
dblade Offline
Member
dblade  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 175
Germany
I also voted for Newton 2, in my opinion, newton is a as ichiro said, very fast engine, which also runs well on older Hardware.

Re: Which physics engine do you want for Gamestudio? [Re: dblade] #204313
04/28/08 17:23
04/28/08 17:23
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,829
Neustadt, Germany
T
TWO Offline

Serious User
TWO  Offline

Serious User
T

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,829
Neustadt, Germany
I'm for PhysX. Please consider 3 things:
- I think it's actually planed by ageia to release smaller drivers
- Most of todays gamers have already installed the driver because of some big, commercial games
- Just remember that what you get here is really next-gen and with the support of nvidida the possibilities of the SDK will even grow, such as graphics card support for physics simulation

As all these physic engines are grown up and stable, there are only small differences between them. But in my opinion PhysX beats all others.

Re: Which physics engine do you want for Gamestudio? [Re: TWO] #204317
04/28/08 17:44
04/28/08 17:44
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 353
A
amy Offline
Senior Member
amy  Offline
Senior Member
A

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 353
Even a 3MB driver is unacceptable to me. Every project you release will need this driver. Why can´t it simply be a dll or lib like all other physics engines? No one owns this physics card flop anyway.

What does "next-gen" mean? \:\) I already said it in the other thread but "next-gen" is nothing but marketing nonsense. It makes absolutely no sense.

I agree that it probably will become better with nVidia. But since CUDA is free, the other engines also will support GPUs sooner or later.

 Quote:
They're integrating it into their PPUs (and, should it become a de facto standard, it'll ultimately work well with other PPUs).
nVidia won´t build PPUs and it won´t bake physics into hardware. GPUs already are very fast vector processors which can be used for physics via CUDA (and of course the CUDA technology will be improved in future generations).

Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Moderated by  aztec, 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