Ywa Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 I don't care which engine will be used, as long as most functionality will be exposed to Lua & C++ (which is not the case in LE2). Also, Newton doesn't have vehicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canardia Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 Newton has actually pretty good vehicles. You can try them in the Newton SDK demos. Josh's vehicle has some problems when doing sharp turns at fast speeds - it stops the vehicle. ■ Ryzen 9 ■ RX 6800M ■ 16GB ■ XF8 ■ Windows 11 ■ ■ Ultra ■ LE 2.5 ■ 3DWS 5.6 ■ Reaper ■ C/C++ ■ C# ■ Fortran 2008 ■ Story ■ ■ Homepage: https://canardia.com ■ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ywa Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 Newton has actually pretty good vehicles. You can try them in the Newton SDK demos. No it doesn't. Version 2.0 doesn't have any vehicles implemented (Source). The old 1.xx releases do have them though. Josh's vehicle has some problems when doing sharp turns at fast speeds - it stops the vehicle. Josh published the vehicle class code. But we can't recreate/port it since he didn't expose all physics functions. So any project that makes use of vehicles in Leadwerks won't be able to make a car drive properly/realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franck22000 Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 If there is some problems why you dont post it in the bugtracker ... You guys are going to be the death of me. Josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeTaL Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 No it doesn't. Version 2.0 doesn't have any vehicles implemented (Source). The old 1.xx releases do have them though. no, it has This list is quite old, and isn't updated for as long time - just try to download demos and see yourself. I worked with Newton car physics in about 2009 - in that time there were 2 types of vehicles: multibody and raycast. Working on LeaFAQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted April 27, 2011 Author Share Posted April 27, 2011 They removed the vehicle functionality since then. It was never that great, which is why I did my own. Newton has the absolute best rigid body solver, without question. However, we need more than just a rigid-body solver. My job is to make tools you love, with the features you want, and performance you can't live without. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted April 28, 2011 Author Share Posted April 28, 2011 Since PhysX 3.0 isn't released yet I will probably end up playing with both. My job is to make tools you love, with the features you want, and performance you can't live without. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeTaL Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 It is realised, with automatic multithreading Working on LeaFAQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TylerH Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 No one noted the fact that the visual effects team for 2012 spent 1 year programming a completely custom version of Bullet for the movie, implementing all of that "real-time" fracturing into a system that generated it one time using a huge render farm, yes it was dynamic, but it was dynamically generated once, over a period of several days per scene. Bullet 2012 and the open source Bullet are no where near the same. And if industry experience accounts for anything, go with PhysX. Not trying to be biased because I used to contract for them, but having been able to profile the SDK inside and out with source access back when AGEIA originally created it, it has only been improved with nVidia GPU access, and even then the software only version of the SDK has quite a lot of features. Just go through the list of all of the games using it, and you wouldn't be disappointed. It's flexibility is astounding. A simple Google search for 2012 bullet physics will link you to articles ands blog posts from the makers of the movie talking about it. nVidia 530M Intel Core i7 - 2.3Ghz 8GB DDR3 RAM Windows 7 Ultimate (64x)----- Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate Google Chrome Creative Suite 5 FL Studio 10 Office 15 ----- Expert Professional Expert BMX Programmer ----- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeTaL Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 If i were Josh, i would look closely at http://www.adrianboeing.com/pal/index.html#intro, cause this poll shows that different projects (and different people) need different physics. Furthermore, if i would make some... well, crane simulation - i would prefer to use old good accurate Newton Working on LeaFAQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted September 19, 2011 Author Share Posted September 19, 2011 Well, I guess Newton is not officially compatible with Android yet. I have PhysX for Android, Windows, and Mac, but the iOS version is not released yet. Newton going open source is not a good sign, because it means if you have a problem, you have to fix it yourself. I know Bullet won this poll, but I think it would be the worst option of the three: Open source (=bad documentation and support), no corporate marketing campaign to convince people it's the best, and I am not familiar with it. It's a tough call because PhysX means restricting the world size below what we have now, but my guess is people would rather have it, even if it's full of bugs, just because it has a nice logo. Upper left at 0:07: I guess I'd better start talking about THE AMAZING POWER OF PHYSX 3 since AFAIK Leadwerks will be the only major engine using the new version. My job is to make tools you love, with the features you want, and performance you can't live without. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Videos like that are so funny. Humans are always amazed by lots of things having physics ran on them At about :09 on the top left shelf looks like a strange spring up of a chair. That must be one of those bugs you speak of. As long as it's easy to use and 1/2 bum decent I'm cool with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Futan Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Enthusiasts typically poke fun/laugh at PhysX, more specifically the GPU accelerated games. Although the shiny logo is probably good for mainstream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canardia Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 What's the point of polls, if you don't go according to them? You don't have to guess what people want, because it's clear that they want Bullet. Actually you should do both Bullet and PhysX plugins in LE3, to have an example how different physics drivers are implemented. ■ Ryzen 9 ■ RX 6800M ■ 16GB ■ XF8 ■ Windows 11 ■ ■ Ultra ■ LE 2.5 ■ 3DWS 5.6 ■ Reaper ■ C/C++ ■ C# ■ Fortran 2008 ■ Story ■ ■ Homepage: https://canardia.com ■ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YouGroove Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 PhysX : - Solid physic framework used in AAA industry - Evolving - Easy to integrate for some tasks (a programmer incopored clothes easily with another 3D engine) - Fast with Nvidia cards So is the Physix software version, running wihtout hardware support (Iphone, PC ATI cards ....) enought good or powerfull compared to Bullet for commeon Physics ? Now for breakable or forest features, not all people will need them indeed ,specially someone making an RPG or other game type. And for Mobile, games like AngryBirds and some others uses lightweight 2D physic engine , perhaps we could integrate a simple 2D engine for mobile , at user choice. http://box2d.org/ I plan more RPG and tactics games so i don't need Physics a lot, i'm not sure Physics will bring me more precision or tools for something if i have to detect a shoot hitting an ennemy also, So actual collision is ok for me ; but if i had to produce on PC it will be with Physix instead, (the user could tweak detail of physix on some menu depending on his PC) Stop toying and make games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurens Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I agree with Rick, I don't care what physics engine you roll in, as long as it's well documented and stable. I would hate to get stuck with PhysX if you think it won't do Leadwerks any good but implemented it just because people like the shiny logo. I for one am completely impartial to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YouGroove Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I'm ok with that point of view ! Just that Physix used in AAA industry i don't thinks it is buggy everywhere. And i don't need a physic engien for my game types , actual physics are enought form me so ... I just hope we will have choice to use the physic engine or not ! So no need to put it on the final distributable product game if no physic engine is used ? Stop toying and make games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeTaL Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 //Actually you should do both Bullet and PhysX plugins in LE3, to have an example how different physics drivers are implemented. Thats why i offer PAL: everybody would be able to select phycis engine that suits him best. On the other hand, maybe it has a sence to make different physic libraries avaivable Working on LeaFAQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canardia Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I think we have to wait and see how the plugin design in LE3 is, maybe it is like PAL, but for all libraries, like graphics, sound, and not only for physics. It would make little sense to have PAL for physics, and then no PAL for sound and graphics. ■ Ryzen 9 ■ RX 6800M ■ 16GB ■ XF8 ■ Windows 11 ■ ■ Ultra ■ LE 2.5 ■ 3DWS 5.6 ■ Reaper ■ C/C++ ■ C# ■ Fortran 2008 ■ Story ■ ■ Homepage: https://canardia.com ■ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niv3k Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Have you given Euphoria a thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Futan Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Euphoria has very high license fees, IIRC. And I'm not sure how exactly that would work. Would just the developers(us) be charged or only Josh charged a most likely bankrupting amount or both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niv3k Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 i guess go with bullet since this engine is going cross-platform so much for helping the pc gaming community.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othux Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Bullet please, so i don't have to worry if nvidia ever stopped physx development in the future, my games will still run with intel 1250 core with slight modification(if le3d will be open sourced) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clackdor Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 From a business standpoint, Josh, are you more interested in using the physics engine to differentiate Leadwerks from other low cost game engines? Or would you prefer to pick a popular physics engine and differentiate Leadwerks in other ways? I've explored 3 engines. Unity uses Physx. Esenthal uses Physx and Bullet. I picked Leadwerks because I liked the editor and think the community is knowledgeable and responsive. I didn't pick it because I prefer Newton. Granted, I'm a noob. I voted Physx for the marketing power of Nvidia. Gamers know who Nvidia is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted November 11, 2011 Author Share Posted November 11, 2011 I am using Newton because: -PhysX guarantees all the cool open-world stuff I want to do down the road is impossible. There's just no way we can do it. I talked to the guy in charge of PhysX at NVidia. It can only handle 40-50,000 bodies, not millions like we are used to. -I have been able to get scaling working with Newton, it just took a lot of careful design that's hidden from the end user. -I have the source to Newton, and the only area I find it lacking in is soft bodies. It's possible I can some day add my own soft body implementation in Newton. It's impossible for me to ever add 64-bit float support or vegetation into PhysX, because it's closed source. PhysX development revolves around consoles, so the memory constraints of those guarantee large worlds are not a priority. This is pretty much what NVidia told me, in different words. My job is to make tools you love, with the features you want, and performance you can't live without. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts