https://twitter.com/AnthonyYakovlev/status/522097473113051136
“Interestingly enough, on desktop-like platforms, PhysX3 is faster than Box2D”
https://twitter.com/AnthonyYakovlev/status/522097473113051136
“Interestingly enough, on desktop-like platforms, PhysX3 is faster than Box2D”
This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 15th, 2014 at 12:26 am and is filed under Physics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « May | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
October 15th, 2014 at 12:59 am
Seems like a nice improvement
http://tech.flyclops.com/battle-of-the-ios-physics-engines-197
October 16th, 2014 at 12:25 am
For the records, even I find this a bit suspicious. We certainly did optimize the code a lot, but doing things in 2D simplifies a lot of things (I think it’s Dennis from Meqon who once said that everything “magically worked” in 2D. There’s no nasty edge cases, etc, etc). In theory there is no reason for Box2D to be slower. It should be significantly faster. But Anthony’s results are at least a hint that PhysX3 is indeed quite fast