Physics engine choices...

[3DModelerMan]

What should I use for my physics engine?, I want something that's somewhat simple, but still powerfull, and that has good docs.
Thanks .

[JP]

did you search the forum first?

i'm guessing not...

this question has been asked lots of times so searching will find you a few discussions on what would suit you best.

i know it's tempting to just wack down a thread quickly before searching or you may have thought your question was entirely new but this forum has not far off 10,000 users and as much as your parents would like you to believe it, you're not unique

that being said i would personally recommend Physx as it's what i use and i found it much easier to understand and get into than when i tried to use Newton.

other people will suggest things like Newton, ODE or Bullet. You could try doing a bit of research on each, take a peek at their tutorials and see which seem the easiest to follow to you.

[3DModelerMan]

Okay I'll check out PhysX and see what I think...wanna compare fingerprints? "HaHa".
Thanks .

[Seven]

JP,
Did you get the PhysX character controller to work properly? I never could get it and actually changed back to IrrNewt because of it. If you have a working demo, I would LOVE to see how the controller is done for you.

[JP]

What was your (or my) problem with the controller? I forget

Currently they're behaving pretty well for the most part so i guess i fixed it

[Seven]

sorry for the delay, Texas Holdem addict in the house. anyhow, I got the controller working, but couldnever get it to collide with anything else. gravity worked etc... but like I say, no collision. If you have a small working controller sample with collision detection, I would love to see it.

[JP]

Well i'm using Physx on PS3 so it's all top secret and highly confidential (it probably is technically but as it's just generic Physx code there's nothing special about it).

Erm... So your characters fall through floors, move through walls etc?

Have you looked at the NxController tutorial? If you implement it in the same way then it should work fine... There's quite a few reasons why it wouldn't work though i guess...

Have you set the controller's actor's collision group? and then turned off collision for that group by mistake? Or have you not set the actor's collision group so it's using a default kinda group that's switched off for whatever reason?

[3DModelerMan]

Maybe it's a problem with the collision mesh .
I can't seem to find the download for physX do you have a download link?. The thing I don't understand so far is, is physX cross platform?.

[JP]

I believe so, it's available on PS3 which is Linux based so i should think it works on Linux PCs.

If you just google Physx you should be able to find out how to get it, Nvidia make it now, instead of Ageia. You have to sign up to their developer network to get access which requires approval but everyone's allowed in you just have to wait for approval, which is pretty quick.

[Dark_Kilauea]

Actually you don't.

PhysX is free to everyone without having to sign up for an account.

http://developer.nvidia.com/object/physx.html

[Virion]

i think the approval thing was last time.

[JP]

Actually you don't.

PhysX is free to everyone without having to sign up for an account.

http://developer.nvidia.com/object/physx.html

Ahh i assume Nvidia have changed how it's dished out then as that's how Ageia handled it.

[aboeing]

you can use the physics abstraction layer, its simple, open source, and you can use physx,havok,bullet,newton,ode, or anything else you want as the underlying tech.
there is a irrlicht integration tutorial on the website.
http://www.adrianboeing.com/pal/pal_irr ... rain1.html

[cassini]

If you want something good, well documented, easy to use, and very much the industry standard, the only answer is Havok. Your worse mistake is going for one of the multi wrappers solutions.

In general multi wrappers are like infomercial that tells you other product are good but the produced they enforces are the best.
They will show demo and clip of how bad the other product looks at doing things while their product of preference is very good.
Basically multi wrappers misrepresent some solution while the prop up their prefer solutions.
They have heavy tilt to one solution and as a result what you get a subset of what the other solution can deliver.
In many cases they will make other solution look worse that they can since they insulate teh end user from the many different ways offered by physics for tweaking and calibrating a feature.

Another reason for using a solution directly is that you will be closer to the metal and you will learn the native API, at the very least you will gain experience that you can put in your resume.
Believe me it look one hell of a lot way you say wrote a demo using Havok, or Physx than saying a using a mutiwraper.

[Dorth]

Wow, where did the bile come from?
Seriously, if you are going to spew such aggression toward such a wide concept, at the very least back it up with references or worthy documentation. The way you just attacked it is pretty akin to discrimination (if the concept was a person, mind you).