Hi I just want to know if Ageia PhysX physic's engine is free to use with Irrlicht??
Like for commercial use???
Also what's your fav pyshic's engine???
Ageia PhysX
Bullet is awesome.
I don't how Physx works, but I've used Newton/ODE/Bullet now, and they are all very similar in operation and function calls, but Bullet is by far the best.
I don't how Physx works, but I've used Newton/ODE/Bullet now, and they are all very similar in operation and function calls, but Bullet is by far the best.
Help make Irrlicht even Better! Create and submit your own Irrlicht Extension
Want a Games Education? Try The Academy of Interactive Entertainment
Want a Games Education? Try The Academy of Interactive Entertainment
That's a stood statement, you'd mentioned many good engines there and considering that Phys is comercial, could you elaborate more as to why Bullet is by far the best?Zeuss wrote:Bullet is awesome.
I don't how Physx works, but I've used Newton/ODE/Bullet now, and they are all very similar in operation and function calls, but Bullet is by far the best.
Maybe some highlights on bullet that the others do not have.
I am not familiar with bullet so I would not know.
Well I hav'nt used Physx, my statement was more Newton vs Bullet vs ODE, and Imho Bullet is by far the better engine, its faster, supports more features like stable stacking and concave moving hulls (although that is slow as you would expect).
Bullet has a better structure, less reliance on callbacks which should make threading it much easier.
Instead of newton using a callback to move the nodes on its update, you write a function of your own to go through a list of rigid bodies that you store and get there position and rotation and use that.
Also you can only use certain newton functions at certain times (i.e in the callbacks) it makes Newton more awkward to work with compared to bullet, in which from what I can tell, can call any function for any rigid body at any time.
I'm still using the very basics of bullet (havn't touched vehicles), but I should be able to run the simulate function for bullet in its own thread, and use semaphores to give me read-only access to the positions and rotations of the rigid bodies on my render update. Well thats what I aim to have eventually.
But with Newton, If i run that in its own thread, the newton simulate function will call the callback to update the nodes position, the problem with this is what if the scene is trying to get access to that nodes memory location in the render thread, and the scene as far as I know needs full read/write access to the node as well as the newton callback, so there has to be a locking call there, to which I am trying to avoid.
I'll need to add some kind of message passing system to the Bullet thread so I can give objects impulses and things from my game logic/input, but all of this seems much easier to implement then in Newton to me.
And the fact that Bullet is opensource, I dont use the lib files for it, I just build the Bullet source straight into my project (mainly because intellisense in VC2005 could'nt seem to generate properly otherwise
)
The other thing about bullet, is if you give it a lot of load, it doesn't really lock up like Newton does.
Bullet has a better structure, less reliance on callbacks which should make threading it much easier.
Instead of newton using a callback to move the nodes on its update, you write a function of your own to go through a list of rigid bodies that you store and get there position and rotation and use that.
Also you can only use certain newton functions at certain times (i.e in the callbacks) it makes Newton more awkward to work with compared to bullet, in which from what I can tell, can call any function for any rigid body at any time.
I'm still using the very basics of bullet (havn't touched vehicles), but I should be able to run the simulate function for bullet in its own thread, and use semaphores to give me read-only access to the positions and rotations of the rigid bodies on my render update. Well thats what I aim to have eventually.
But with Newton, If i run that in its own thread, the newton simulate function will call the callback to update the nodes position, the problem with this is what if the scene is trying to get access to that nodes memory location in the render thread, and the scene as far as I know needs full read/write access to the node as well as the newton callback, so there has to be a locking call there, to which I am trying to avoid.
I'll need to add some kind of message passing system to the Bullet thread so I can give objects impulses and things from my game logic/input, but all of this seems much easier to implement then in Newton to me.
And the fact that Bullet is opensource, I dont use the lib files for it, I just build the Bullet source straight into my project (mainly because intellisense in VC2005 could'nt seem to generate properly otherwise
)The other thing about bullet, is if you give it a lot of load, it doesn't really lock up like Newton does.
Help make Irrlicht even Better! Create and submit your own Irrlicht Extension
Want a Games Education? Try The Academy of Interactive Entertainment
Want a Games Education? Try The Academy of Interactive Entertainment
Come down man why are you angry?
Basically what you are saying is that you are more confortable with Bullet than Newton.
It is Newton you have issues with, I do not see how that makes Bullet the best engine.
I agree with you Bullet is open source which is nice, but so is Trueaxis, ODE and now Tokamak, I hardly see how that makes bullet the best engine.
I think the best way to compare Bullet and Newton will be having them running the same scene and see how they behave.
Collada seems to be a good common ground since both have viewers written by the main developers.
https://collada.org/public_forum/viewto ... f3c652b20e
https://collada.org/public_forum/viewto ... f3c652b20e
Finally I do not think the question was a referendum on Newton, it was about physX and whether it can be used commercially or not with Irrlicht.
And the answer is yes it can.
Basically what you are saying is that you are more confortable with Bullet than Newton.
It is Newton you have issues with, I do not see how that makes Bullet the best engine.
I agree with you Bullet is open source which is nice, but so is Trueaxis, ODE and now Tokamak, I hardly see how that makes bullet the best engine.
I think the best way to compare Bullet and Newton will be having them running the same scene and see how they behave.
Collada seems to be a good common ground since both have viewers written by the main developers.
https://collada.org/public_forum/viewto ... f3c652b20e
https://collada.org/public_forum/viewto ... f3c652b20e
Finally I do not think the question was a referendum on Newton, it was about physX and whether it can be used commercially or not with Irrlicht.
And the answer is yes it can.
I'm not angry, but newton does Irk me.
I never actually said Bullet was the best, I said in my opinion, out of Newton Bullet and ODE, Bullet is the best.
ODE doesnt have the feature set or performance of Bullet (I tried those 2 in the same scene), as i rewrote my ODE wrapper to a Bullet wrapper.
I can't comment on Trueaxis and Tokamak.
But out of Newton, ODE and Bullet, in my opinion bullet is superior.
After using bullet I will never use newton again unless I have too.
I never actually said Bullet was the best, I said in my opinion, out of Newton Bullet and ODE, Bullet is the best.
ODE doesnt have the feature set or performance of Bullet (I tried those 2 in the same scene), as i rewrote my ODE wrapper to a Bullet wrapper.
I can't comment on Trueaxis and Tokamak.
But out of Newton, ODE and Bullet, in my opinion bullet is superior.
After using bullet I will never use newton again unless I have too.
Help make Irrlicht even Better! Create and submit your own Irrlicht Extension
Want a Games Education? Try The Academy of Interactive Entertainment
Want a Games Education? Try The Academy of Interactive Entertainment
i tried ODE, Bullet, Newton... And stayed with Newton. Problem was that with ODE i couldnt get realistic simulation. I tried lots of configs, even if they worked in another project - in mine bodies bounced from ground like hell.. With Bullet i had more difficulties. Some strange memmory allocation problems were produced during project runtime and this lead to the crash. It was caused by debug/relase dll and project configuration but even with same configs i got strange errors...
So Ageia PhysX physic's engine is free even for commercial use?? I am working on a game and want to make money off it.
To me I don't really like newton lol I tried it didn't like overall.
I like the Ageia PhysX physic's engine becuse of the reality motion's ect and crap and I know it's in playstation 3 games ect.
The engine look's overall great but never used it, I plan to if it's open sorce and could be used for commerical purposes.
Also I know c++ but never made a full program I don't fully know how to make my own functions .
I mean to me it look's like people make the functions out of the air.
lol I mean I can't start making functions becsue I don't know where to start, I know how to use them and use other's function's but never could make my own, I mean in program wise like buttons how they act when clicked ect.
To me I don't really like newton lol I tried it didn't like overall.
I like the Ageia PhysX physic's engine becuse of the reality motion's ect and crap and I know it's in playstation 3 games ect.
The engine look's overall great but never used it, I plan to if it's open sorce and could be used for commerical purposes.
Also I know c++ but never made a full program I don't fully know how to make my own functions .
I mean to me it look's like people make the functions out of the air.
lol I mean I can't start making functions becsue I don't know where to start, I know how to use them and use other's function's but never could make my own, I mean in program wise like buttons how they act when clicked ect.
-
SwitchCase
- Posts: 170
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 11:41 pm
- Location: Manchester, UK
It's NOT open source. But you CAN use it for free.The engine look's overall great but never used it, I plan to if it's open sorce and could be used for commerical purposes.
Sounds like you don't know c++ to me.Also I know c++ but never made a full program I don't fully know how to make my own functions.
You don't 'make' functions, you declare them. Then you can use them as you use other functions.
I suggest you read a book on c++.
ya I know C++, I just was confused on functions, I know that you declare them.
I read many c++ and c books, and found sites online that's how I learned c++, it's just I never wrote a whole application before, like I don't know how to structure a program fully, like with my own stuff, like it's hard to start making a program, like I know what's in the program, like if a game is made and I open it and read it I can understand how it was strucutured.
but I don't know how to create my own structure, it's hard starting out.
I read many c++ and c books, and found sites online that's how I learned c++, it's just I never wrote a whole application before, like I don't know how to structure a program fully, like with my own stuff, like it's hard to start making a program, like I know what's in the program, like if a game is made and I open it and read it I can understand how it was strucutured.
but I don't know how to create my own structure, it's hard starting out.
Yeah, its like reading a book, when I like open the book, I can like usually tell it was written in English and has like chapters and stuff.hockey97 wrote:ya I know C++, I just was confused on functions, I know that you declare them.
I read many c++ and c books, and found sites online that's how I learned c++, it's just I never wrote a whole application before, like I don't know how to structure a program fully, like with my own stuff, like it's hard to start making a program, like I know what's in the program, like if a game is made and I open it and read it I can understand how it was strucutured.
but I don't know how to create my own structure, it's hard starting out.
I despair. "Its hard starting out," so you decide to start out making a commercial game using a free engine, free sounds, free advice from the community only to put some jingle in your own pocket? It would be a different story someone who puts passion before profit, decides to actually sit down with the engine, explore its inner workings, then come up with a work flow for a future commercial project. But in my opinion what you are doing just isn't decent. I cannot judge the man, only his actions. Anyway, good luck.
If you don't even know how to structure your own program or write your own functions etc then you really dont want to start off playing around with a physics engine.. or even a graphics engine. It's too much for you to deal with straight away. Start off by writing your own little game using the command line output, something like a hangman game. No graphics, just text output. It'll help you figure out how to put a little program together and once you've achieved that you'll be much better prepared for the likes of engines.
