From Developers: Bullet Physics instead ODE and PhysX.


Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Next topic
Previous topic
Post new topic Reply to topic  NeoAxis Forum Index » General » General Discussion
Search for:
Author Message
Administrator
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006
Posts: 5059
Location: Kazan
Country: Russia (ru)
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:19 pm Post subject: From Developers: Bullet Physics instead ODE and PhysX.
Bottom of Page Back to top

[EDIT] 22.11.2010.

Unfinished sources of Bullet implementation has been published by developers. Binaries included.
http://www.neoaxisgroup.com/phpBB2/view ... 3974#33974

We will continue development of Bullet implementation later. After NeoAxis 1.0.


--------------

Hi here!

-------

I thinking about implementation Bullet physics. This looking good and polished. Demos are good too.

-------


Why need Bullet?

First, we need fast physics on MacOSX. As we know, PhysX is not support MacOSX. Epic fail. Then we can use only ODE.

Second, we want to have one universal, good and expandable physics library.
SoftBodies, Cloth, etc will be great i think. ODE is not support this.

Also Bullet physics soon (or already) will have OpenCL support for better performance.

PhysX fails: closed sources, no MacOSX support, vendor-lock for nVidia cards.
ODE fails: Slower, no softbody, cloth and some other advanced features support.

When Bullet physics will be implemented, we will remove support of ODE and PhysX (sources will be shared of course).

So, Community, what you think about it?
Pluses? Minuses?


Last edited by Ivan Efimov on Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:21 am, edited 4 times in total.


_________________
Founder, lead developer of NeoAxis Group Ltd.
News on Twitter, Google+, Facebook, VK
 
 Profile  
Professional License
Professional License

Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007
Posts: 1536
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:00 pm 
Bottom of Page Back to top
I think your choice is good for developing the tool but I also think that you shouldn't remove PhysX as it is actually the "standard de facto" in physics.

_________________
Max2NeoAxis Exporter!
 
 Profile  
Unlimited License
Unlimited License
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009
Posts: 429
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:14 pm 
Bottom of Page Back to top
It seems a necessary solution for the new development.
Quote:
SoftBodies, Cloth, etc will be great i think. ODE are is support this.

i like this.
Code: Select all   Expand view
SoftBodies, Cloth, etc will be great i think. ODE are is support this. 

and this!
but NvidiaPhysix is a also standard in phisics....
the problem is if someone has managed the physix code in NA....
I vote yes for Bullet. but i think we need other choices...

 
 Profile  
Professional License
Professional License

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007
Posts: 394
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:33 pm 
Bottom of Page Back to top
Hello,
I think Bullet is a good choice.
PhysX, with its vendor related status, always made me think twice before using it. Yet, beside the fact I had stability problem with it (Big masses and huge forces), it's still a standard (robust and validated).
ODE has always been more stable for me, but is slower.
So, I can try a new solution !

Regards,

_________________
Freeman
 
 Profile  
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010
Posts: 105
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:45 pm 
Bottom of Page Back to top
Sounds like a good option here also, being fairly new to the scene and at the stage where were are playing with Vehicle Physics, I see some great Bullet demos out there.

Go for it.

_________________
Cecil Bergwin
Bpm Studios
 
 Profile  
Professional License
Professional License
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007
Posts: 1079
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:04 pm 
Bottom of Page Back to top
I am not sure you should get rid of ODE and Physics Maybe just add bullet as another option, atleast until we all can test bullet and make sure it is suitable for our games.. I use ODE and takeing that out will more then likely break my game all together.. and probably a few other's games.

_________________
Assault Knights:Reign of Steel
Donate to the Assault Knights project
 
 Profile  
Source License
Source License

Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008
Posts: 719
Country: Norway (no)
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:06 pm 
Bottom of Page Back to top
I'd say go for it!

PhysX is fast but has many quirks and tends to get unstable unless you are very careful about your physics usage. Nvidia has also tightened their vendor lock in with their drivers. It used to be possible to have one Nvidia GPU for PhysX acceleration and ATI for rendering. Now the driver detects if an ATI GPU is present and disables PhysX acceleration if so.

NeoAxis should also strive to be platform independent and this is another great step in that direction. Bullet Physics is also gaining popularity fast and I believe has already proven itself on commercial titles.

Edit: Of course it must be tested carefully so people who has invested a lot of time using ODE or PhysX doesn't run into severe problems. Maybe they can be kept for a while giving the user an option to select them and then at some point in the future remove them if ppl are okay with it...

 
 Profile  
Professional License
Professional License
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008
Posts: 410
Location: PHILADELPHIA, PA
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:53 am 
Bottom of Page Back to top
So long as we don't have stuff like this happening in our games I'm all for it: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/ai-lo ... 2033/63219 (fast forward to 2:18 to see)

_________________
http://www.replaydio.com - pc games
http://www.binxalot.com - texture maps
http://www.xdebugxgames.com - android games
 
 Profile  
Professional License
Professional License

Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007
Posts: 1536
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 5:55 am 
Bottom of Page Back to top
Goto10 wrote:
I'd say go for it!

PhysX is fast but has many quirks and tends to get unstable unless you are very careful about your physics usage. Nvidia has also tightened their vendor lock in with their drivers. It used to be possible to have one Nvidia GPU for PhysX acceleration and ATI for rendering. Now the driver detects if an ATI GPU is present and disables PhysX acceleration if so.

NeoAxis should also strive to be platform independent and this is another great step in that direction. Bullet Physics is also gaining popularity fast and I believe has already proven itself on commercial titles.


I didn't know this.
In this case I revert my opinion and think surely moving to a completely free library like Bullet.
Also there is a quite nice news right now on the site :D
http://bulletphysics.org/wordpress/?p=175

Good to send to f**k off Nvidia and their closed solution.
I wonder how still software producers can think that so widespread libraries and softwares can remain closed and still live.
They still don't understand that now or later somebody will come out with a more free solution and they'll have to open their too to not lose popularity.

_________________
Max2NeoAxis Exporter!
 
 Profile  
Professional License
Professional License

Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007
Posts: 1536
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 6:15 am 
Bottom of Page Back to top
Uh, there's editor only for Maya... hope they'll set up one for Max soon.

_________________
Max2NeoAxis Exporter!
 
 Profile  

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010
Posts: 8
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:39 am 
Bottom of Page Back to top
I think PhysX will mean more to people looking at NeoAxis, as it's seen as the near 'standard' for physics on Windows machines. Most people I know have never heard of 'Bullet Physics' and will just be confused and move to another engine that uses stuff they've heard of.

 
 Profile  
Professional License
Professional License

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007
Posts: 394
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:19 am 
Bottom of Page Back to top
@GhostaCoasta : not sure about what you say. People interested in using an engine will try it before looking somewhere else. If Demos are convincing, they may look further (features etc...). Then, they will start to ask the question of the reliability of it's component (stability, support, future evolution...).
People that would turn only on the physics library name are mainly people that are searching for "curiosity" (which is good also ! I state no judgement), and they are not really making any choice, just experiment. So they wont stick to any engine for now, while in experiment phase.

If the engine do it's job, anybody "trying" the engine will be convinced, whatever the library. Then, if one asks itself about "using an engine for sometime", they will asks for some guaranty, and that's where PhysX uses its name, and then again, only "true" guaranty (not only name, but feature, seriousness of the project and related libraries) should really make somebody stays (here, I agree with you because of the wide usage of the PhysX library, that's an implicit guaranty). Yet, as this "market" is fast evolving, almost anybody now how fast a big name can become obsolete... and vice-versa.
In my opinion Indies are exactly the kind of people that will try "a not so famous name" based on actual performance and "vendor constraint-free" solution (more than a big studio, with support contract from Nvidia's and such), for the sake of its freedom or budget reason.

So I only partly agree with you, and as NA is targeted at Indies and such, it seems appropriate to try it. But indeed, this choice means that the engine will have to be convincing with a not-yet very famous solution.

Regards,

_________________
Freeman
 
 Profile  
Unlimited License
Unlimited License
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007
Posts: 144
Location: Between my chair and my computer
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:32 am 
Bottom of Page Back to top
+1 for bullet. i have neither been impressed by ODE or PhysX and both have had their problems for me over the years. I also find that most of my physics models either work in ODE or PhysX, but rarely both. I personally think it would be a great idea to have a single physics lib and concentrate all future development on that, no matter what the selection is. That should equate to a more stable and robust physics solution for NA.

@GhostaCoasta, if anyone is going to drop use of an engine cause it doesn't have PhysX, or get 'confused' by the use of a different physics lib then they probably have no business developing a game anyway. it has already been stated about the vendor locks with PhysX, so if someone will drop an engine cause it doesn't have PhysX, you are also snubbing a great deal of your potential customer base.

I support any move that will increase my customer base when my game hits the shelves.

 
 Profile  
Unlimited License
Unlimited License
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009
Posts: 790
Location: Belgrade
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:51 am 
Bottom of Page Back to top
+1 for bullet!

_________________
Updated GridPathFindSystem
Smarter AI
Arilienta (Our NA Game)
 
 Profile  
Professional License
Professional License

Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009
Posts: 57
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:38 am 
Bottom of Page Back to top
Totally agree. Go for bullet!

 
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  NeoAxis Forum Index » General » General Discussion
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Jump to:  

Next topic
Previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

cron

All times are UTC




Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group