irrSimplePhysics v0.002 - Simple Class for SceneNode Physics

geckoman · Post by **geckoman** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:54 pm

I did not compare the performance but the ease of use here stunned me

Physics is just an optical blingbling in my game as it's a sort of 4x game like Master of Orion.
I just wanted to blow up Spaceships or other things with a nice explosion that throws around parts of the actual object, not just particle or standard explosions.
And installing another package for physx is also not very comfortable.

On the other side I liked the optional Hardware-Acc. thats available with it.

Whats your suggestion for me?

JP · Post by JP » Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:10 pm

Yeah i would agree that IrrPhysx might be a bit heavy for what you want... Well.. I dunno, it should do the trick I think but if you could use something even simpler like this then that would be easier for you probably!

Pyritie · Post by **Pyritie** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:19 pm

I converted it to jirr.

http://pastie.org/387482 and http://pastie.org/387483

geckoman · Post by **geckoman** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:24 pm

JP wrote:Yeah i would agree that IrrPhysx might be a bit heavy for what you want... Well.. I dunno, it should do the trick I think but if you could use something even simpler like this then that would be easier for you probably!

Ok then let's see if there is a project like this one ready when I want to integrate Physics into my Project.

fmx · Post by **fmx** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:56 am

so i'm guessing you guys like this the way it is?

I haven't had much time to do anything on the affector though, but its next on my list. Collisions too. Maybe a better framework for true FPS-independance with (unoptimised and ugly) collision-detection.
Should be enough to keep people happy with small projects and demos etc.

For an affector, would it make sense if it only "affected" the scenenode until it became static (no velocity or movement) then destroyed itself? Or would that cause problems if another affector was applied to it afterwards?

"Exploding" scene-nodes really should use the affector system because they will only be "exploding" for a short time before they get hidden or removed, so no point keeping them in physics-memory as objects.
Do you want "collisions" with that?

geckoman · Post by **geckoman** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:11 pm

On HOW you do that, I can not say a thing, but for the collisions, that would be nice.
Imagine several spaceships blown up and the parts of it colliding

Pyritie · Post by **Pyritie** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:47 pm

fmx wrote:I haven't had much time to do anything on the affector though, but its next on my list. Collisions too. Maybe a better framework for true FPS-independance with (unoptimised and ugly) collision-detection.
Should be enough to keep people happy with small projects and demos etc.

Yay collision!

For an affector, would it make sense if it only "affected" the scenenode until it became static (no velocity or movement) then destroyed itself? Or would that cause problems if another affector was applied to it afterwards?

But what if the scenenode started moving again? Having to re-add the affector all the time would be annoying.

Or you could add another boolean for whether the affector should be removed when the node stops moving or not. :3

3DModelerMan · Post by **3DModelerMan** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:41 pm

What does the reset function do? And why do you have to call updateAbsolutePosition on it?

3DModelerMan · Post by **3DModelerMan** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:12 pm

When is the next version coming out?

JP · Post by JP » Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:06 am

FMX wasn't really planning on keeping this project updated so much as just providing some really simple physics

fmx · Post by **fmx** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:22 pm

um, have you been waiting for the next version?

Like JP has said, I thought this may have been good enough so i wasn't particularly going to continue working on it...

If you can make me a nice long list of things you would like in the next release, then i could work through it whenever I get time.

Or you could try using Newton

JP · Post by JP » Sat Mar 21, 2009 4:37 pm

fmx wrote: If you can make me a nice long list of things you would like in the next release...

Oh dear FMX.... Why would you go and say a thing like that?? xD

fmx · Post by **fmx** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 6:13 pm

to prove how futile it is to attempt to simulate a physics-engine when you can use *real* physics engines.
Subtletly is not my thing

3DModelerMan I've sent you a PM.

irrSimplePhysics will be updated, but I can't promise anything for anyone.
(that is if anyone even uses this... besides Pyritie)

grumpymonkey · Post by **grumpymonkey** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:06 pm

umm...so the example provided just shows an orange sphere that flies around? I wouldnt really call that physics, especially because the collisions arent even that great. the ball twitches, or vibrates or something when its on the floor

Pyritie · Post by **Pyritie** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:36 pm

fmx wrote:irrSimplePhysics will be updated, but I can't promise anything for anyone.
(that is if anyone even uses this... besides Pyritie)

Heh, I've moved to ogre, actually.

Irrlicht Engine

irrSimplePhysics v0.002 - Simple Class for SceneNode Physics

reset?

next version?