Bullet integration

Expanding and utilizing the engine via C++.
  • 1
  • 2
12 posts Page 1 of 2
saindd
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:20 am
by saindd » Wed Apr 15, 2015 5:38 am
Is Bullet the default physics engine? Or is it PhysX? Do the vehicles use the Bullet code for vehicles or a custom one? How can we compile the engine with Bullet support?
Timmy
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:20 am
by Timmy » Wed Apr 15, 2015 9:04 am
By default no physics plugin is compiled in. The vehicles don't use any physics plugins nor will they interact with any physics objects. You can enable bullet physics (or PhysX) in the project generator (there are other ways but that is the easiest ). If you look here i enabled kinematic bodies with vehicles https://github.com/rextimmy/Torque3D. Not perfect but better than nothing and will work with all physics plugins
saindd
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:20 am
by saindd » Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:51 am
So where the engine applies Bullet? Character controllers only? Is Bullet or PhysX even supported in networking?

Regarding vehicles... they use some kind of custom physics code? Is it possible to replace the vehicles with bullet vehicles? How hard would that be? Is the code highly coupled?
saindd
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:20 am
by saindd » Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:12 am
Bumping. :D
Kyrah Abattoir
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:57 pm
by Kyrah Abattoir » Mon May 11, 2015 8:50 am
So where the engine applies Bullet? Character controllers only? Is Bullet or PhysX even supported in networking?

Regarding vehicles... they use some kind of custom physics code? Is it possible to replace the vehicles with bullet vehicles? How hard would that be? Is the code highly coupled?
To my experience, Player and objects "physiscShape" by default.
Cheetah still uses a custom "ground repeller" code which you could most likely port to Bullet if you wanted.

For something more detailed you will probably need physical constraints, which are not currently implemented. (but it's really a matter of hooking them from Bullet really)

Can anyone correct me? This is what i concluded a couple months ago when i was bashing my head on it (before giving up).
rlranft
Posts: 309
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:11 pm
 
by rlranft » Tue May 12, 2015 2:59 pm
Physx - check this thread - http://www.garagegames.com/community/fo ... ead/135448

GMK - has other physics-related enhancements - http://www.garagegames.com/community/fo ... ead/136157
8bitprodigy
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:43 pm
by 8bitprodigy » Tue May 12, 2015 4:40 pm
Why isn't Bullet the stock physics engine anyway? It has most if not all the modern features you'd want in a physics engine, and it's open source, so unlike PhysX, it's source could be distributed with the engine.
chriscalef
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:48 pm
by chriscalef » Tue May 12, 2015 6:08 pm
I'm still focusing on physx because (absent any rigorous testing, mind you) I'm still under the impression that it has a lot more features and better performance than bullet. I'd be more than willing to stand corrected though - maybe somebody with some time on their hands should do some heavy benchmarking in Torque and see if there's a clear winner, performance-wise.

Re: features, I know very little about where bullet is at these days, but I'd sure love to see a comprehensive comparison.
Johxz
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:37 pm
by Johxz » Wed May 13, 2015 4:34 am
FYI

Benchmark: Bullet - PhysX2 - PhysX3
https://www.garagegames.com/community/f ... ead/136369
chriscalef
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:48 pm
by chriscalef » Wed May 13, 2015 5:27 am
Ah, I missed that, thank you Johxz.

Does that answers your question, 8bitprodigy?

It is awfully nice having the fully open source option out there though.
  • 1
  • 2
12 posts Page 1 of 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest