Which physics library is easiest to integrate into irrlicht?

You are an experienced programmer and have a problem with the engine, shaders, or advanced effects? Here you'll get answers.
No questions about C++ programming or topics which are answered in the tutorials!
Post Reply
insidious611
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:23 am

Which physics library is easiest to integrate into irrlicht?

Post by insidious611 »

Am working on a heavily physics-dependant Irrlicht-based game, and am wondering which physics library, of PhysX, ODE, Bullet, or others, is the easiest to integrate with Irrlicht?

Accuracy and speed are not heavy factors at this point, am still in prototyping stages.

My specific needs at the moment:
- Ability to pick up, drop, throw, arbitrary (though mostly cube based) objects with realistic reactions. (Earliest milestone)
- Ability to simulate the physics of flying and ground based vehicles with some degree of accuracy. (Later development)
- Ability to simulate binding one object to another in different ways, ie with rope, welding, etc. (Far later development)
serengeor
Posts: 1712
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:34 pm
Location: Lithuania

Re: Which physics library is easiest to integrate into irrli

Post by serengeor »

I find bullet physics engine pretty easy to integrate, requires minimal code. With others I can't really say, but I've seen people complain more about other engines.

You should probably just try yourself every engine that can do what you need.
Working on game: Marrbles (Currently stopped).
Mel
Competition winner
Posts: 2292
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 11:40 am
Location: Granada, Spain

Re: Which physics library is easiest to integrate into irrli

Post by Mel »

Newton requires less setup, and uses the same matrix format as Irrlicht, but it is less accurate than others, like Bullet or Physx
"There is nothing truly useless, it always serves as a bad example". Arthur A. Schmitt
Nadro
Posts: 1648
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 9:08 am
Location: Warsaw, Poland

Re: Which physics library is easiest to integrate into irrli

Post by Nadro »

From my side I can say that Bullet is really easy to integrate ;)
Library helping with network requests, tasks management, logger etc in desktop and mobile apps: https://github.com/GrupaPracuj/hermes
randomMesh
Posts: 1186
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:04 am

Re: Which physics library is easiest to integrate into irrli

Post by randomMesh »

Here's a small Hello World program using Bullet. See for yourself how easy it is.
"Whoops..."
insidious611
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:23 am

Re: Which physics library is easiest to integrate into irrli

Post by insidious611 »

Bullet or Newton then, leaning Bullet.

Thanks guys! That was very helpful.
_Neo
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 7:47 pm
Location: SiChuan, China

Re: Which physics library is easiest to integrate into irrli

Post by _Neo »

For me, Newton is easy to use, and it requires less time to learn.
codetiger
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 9:24 am
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

Re: Which physics library is easiest to integrate into irrli

Post by codetiger »

We are currently working on a Heavy Physics dependent game. And while we built our Game engine using Irrlicht, we opted to use a wrapper for many Physics engines so we can check the performance on different engines. We integrated Bullet 2.8, Physx 3.2.1, Tokamak and started working on Newton and ODE.

Shorting the engines:
Easy Setup:
100/100: Newton
97/100: Bullet
90/100: Physx
50/100: Tokamak

Performance:
100/100: Bullet (using multi-threading and some optimizations)
97/100: Physx (out of the box)

Features:
100/100: Physx
85/100: Bullet
80/100: Newton
50/100: Tokamak

Cross-platform:
100/100: Bullet
100/100: Tokamak
100/100: Newton
75/100: Physx

Overall Satisfaction:
100/100: Bullet
99/100: Physx
50/100: Tokamak

Note:

Tokamak: Forget him, if you use convexHull shape or irregular shapes. Otherwise, he's quite stable in stacking however inaccurate.
ODE: We we not really happy about the performance. Its not comparable with other engines.
Physx: The only engines with very good particle system.

Our choice: Bullet with cross-platform with high priority. And we'll definitely look to work with Physx in our next projects.


Edit:
Forgot to mention, all our tests were don't only under software version of Physx in both Mac and Windows.
Last edited by codetiger on Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
IrrNaCl - Irrlicht Port for Google Chrome Native Client - Demo

Iyan 3D - Make your own 3d animation using your iOS Device
hendu
Posts: 2600
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:53 pm

Re: Which physics library is easiest to integrate into irrli

Post by hendu »

Never forget:
http://semiaccurate.com/2010/07/07/nvid ... physx-cpu/

So if you use PhysX, only users with Nvidia GPUs will get good speed out of it.

edit: Nvidia users on Windows. I know they don't accel physx under linux, and don't think they do under mac.
Granyte
Posts: 850
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Which physics library is easiest to integrate into irrli

Post by Granyte »

Ya and sometime PhysX does not work at all when an amd gpu is detected.

And bullet is devlopping a multi platform gpu acceleration based on OpenCL.
Post Reply