We closed this forum 18 June 2010. It has served us well since 2005 as the ALPHA forum did before it from 2002 to 2005. New discussions are ongoing at the new URL http://forum.processing.org. You'll need to sign up and get a new user account. We're sorry about that inconvenience, but we think it's better in the long run. The content on this forum will remain online.
Index › Programming Questions & Help › Other Libraries › Rigid Body Physics These days
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Rigid Body Physics These days (Read 1151 times)
Oni
Rigid Body Physics These days
Mar 1st, 2010, 2:05pm  
Having looked around, ODE *was* the library of choice however all the samples are around 4-5 years old and it seems that the project itself has stopped. I couldnt get it working within an hour as Processing complained that it was the wrong architecture. Basically, I'm running snow leopard and despite the "rosetta checkbox" trick, I've had no luck with getting it to work. THe native library is still wrong.

Ive played with Toxiclibs which are excellent but focus on softbody verlet physics which, despite my sincere efforts, are not really appropriate for what I want to do. Has anyone else played with hardbody physics with processing and what is the current state of play?

Cheers! Smiley
Back to top
 
 
jeffg
Re: Rigid Body Physics These days
Reply #1 - Mar 1st, 2010, 5:11pm  
Take a look at BoxWrap2D. That's based on JBox2D, which does rigid body physics.  Another is PBox2D.
Back to top
 
WWW  
PhiLho 
Re: Rigid Body Physics These days
Reply #2 - Mar 1st, 2010, 11:10pm  
For completeness, there is also Phys2D, less powerful than JBox2D but some people prefer it because it has a more "Java" feeling (JBox2D kept some C++ style from Box2D).

Both are for 2D physics, if you search 3D physics, there are still a good number of libraries, in general in game frameworks.
Back to top
 
WWW  
cr0ybot
Re: Rigid Body Physics These days
Reply #3 - Mar 15th, 2010, 5:55pm  
I am really enjoying using PBox2D (by Daniel Shiffman) because it provides a simple front for JBox2D, but also allows you to easily dive directly into JBox2D (with help from the JBox2D documentation). However, PBox2D is very new, and very minimal. JBox2D is a bit cumbersome in that it takes more lines of code to create one physics box than you'd assume you would need, but you get used to it. You also need to draw the objects on your own with Processing.

BoxWrap2D (by ewjordan) has more features built in with less direct control over the JBox2D java library (I believe). BoxWrap2D does the visual rendering of the physics bodies for you, but the default rendering method doesn't really fit with the diverse range of aesthetics that Processing can achieve. I found it difficult to understand implementing custom rendering methods to make it match your own style.

Choose your destiny.
Back to top
 
-cr0ybot
WWW  
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›