Why the heck is almost every game engine trying to switch over to Bullet physics ?

[UnspoiledWalnut]

Jason Amstrad

Hmm.. what engines exactly ?

UnspoiledWalnut

Havok is not open source. How many Havok powered games are released ? 300+
PhysX SDK is not open source. How many games ? 260+
Bullet is open source. Around 20 games for past years, if I remember correctly.

Quite a few movies have as well. And you're talking about major studios, not indie games (for which there are significantly more, and often times they are quite a bit better than many of the major studio productions), and Havok's first release was like like eleven years ago in 2000, and I don't know about Bullet or PhysX but I think Bullet is significantly younger (I know PhysX has been around since like 2004 at least because that's when Ageia bought it I think). You're argument isn't that good altogether though, how many games have been released with it doesn't speak for much of how well it actually works.

[Zogrim]

UnspoiledWalnut

You're argument isn't that good altogether though

Neither is yours - Bullet is much better, only because it is, omg "OPEN SOURCE".
Bullet is a good engine, but some people are overestimating it.

but I think Bullet is significantly younger

August 2005. Not that young.

[UnspoiledWalnut]

Yes, quite half the age of Havok and still younger than PhysX. And yes, open source. As to whether or not you're a programmer I have no idea, but it's pretty **** nice. I'm using it for most of my projects because I design it to do exactly what I want it to do and nothing else, and I already have the base. And I'm not overestimating, nor am I even trying to make that good of an argument because, as with most things, I couldn't care less (and it wasn't really even an argument, that was more of a correction and little explanation, if I was arguing would have spent some time to look up sources) but hey: at the very least it's a point. One that you have failed to counter and I mean you even failed to make fun of me dude.

[stevenchau]

If I post this same problem , I will be to say ban again , troll again... ahhhh ~ -_-

[UnspoiledWalnut]

And that has nothing to do with you doing that like every other day with questions that no one understands?

[Zogrim]

UnspoiledWalnut

make fun of me dude

No, not at alll Just thought you one of those "overhypers", who screams like "Bullet is so cool because it's written on OpenCL, written by AMD, open-sourse (sign)", etc.. not understanding, what it really is.
If you want my apology, you have it.

--
So back on original statement.. "almost every game engine" ? I can name only few

[UnspoiledWalnut]

No I think it's cool because this isn't 2000 where the Internet is a new thing. People have access to all of the information they need for essentially whatever they want, and this industry is likely going to go through fairly quick progression as the newer generations get older and open source software is going to do nothing but help that. I mean ****, tomorrow someone might release a total rebuild of it that surpasses APEX or whatever else you want to throw in. You're not going to see that with PhysX or Havok and that is why there is more appeal. And as you will possibly learn, for the most part I don't care about anything that happens on here. I'll respond to threads like this just to give some form of argument, and typically no one really responds but I mean, I felt like I had to say something.

[hellslayer]

Well for the most part I feel that the most important Parts in general for me when they build in new features are these:
1: Its Easy to get into it
2: Its fast to build something with it
3: Its stable and I dont have to rework all my stuff each month because things changed dramaticly.

So to talk about open source, well open source dont means free. When projects get bigger you will see thing like one man rebuild a complete system to a new level much lesser.
Opensource is really important but its not a quality that makes it better then closed source projects.

[Nawrot]

Its maybe because PhysX is nvidia only, no ATI support. Why limit your potential customer base on PC by half. Also open source means you can modify it to your needs, while with PhysX you need to beg nvidia to make changes.

And nobody want that history of DirectX and OpenGL (or whole windows drama) will repeat, same goes for win 7 mobile and android. There are people out there that can make decisions who do not want that same old **** again, they will even accept some loss now to avoid it later. Monopoly is really bad for business and holds everything back.

[Kinos]

What specs are necessary to run these things? I tried it on a friends system, and it look like molasses.

[Phopojijo]

UnspoiledWalnut

Neither is yours - Bullet is much better, only because it is, omg "OPEN SOURCE".
Bullet is a good engine, but some people are overestimating it.


August 2005. Not that young.

Well no... the more open a platform is... the slower it typically takes to catch on because proprietary platforms has the platform owner to market the hell out of it. An open platform is less likely to have a company wave its banner for it... because they're afraid of helping their competitors who can also use that platform.

nVidia/Ageia and Havok/Intel had a better start because they had money from Ageia and Havok's start... and had massive more dollars pumped into them from nVidia and Intel.

The open platforms usually win in the end, however, because as they get popular, there's more and more and more development into them.

So yes, slow acceleration doesn't mean a low top speed.

[Graylord]

UnspoiledWalnut

No, not at alll Just thought you one of those "overhypers", who screams like "Bullet is so cool because it's written on OpenCL, written by AMD, open-sourse (sign)", etc.. not understanding, what it really is.

Sounds like you are the one who does not know what open source is.