Other engines have Physics... what about us?

#1 Corona: No source.
Unity: No source.
GameSalad: No source.

I can see why each of these implemented Box2D into the SDK ;)

But more seriously, it would be great if TP integrated Box2D (which is currently reported as the most stable solution) into iT2D, just so devs don't have to be physics gurus.

I've started on a project which will probably need some physics, but it's TGB. I'll see if I can integrate Box2D well enough and apply that to the iOS engine. No promises, though! Hoping TP would get someone on that task ASAFP :)

#2 I'll dig into the Torque 2D repository to see if there is any chance of the Box2D code being compatible with iTorque 2D.

#3 To be honest, this is one of the many reasons I chose not to use iTGB for my next game. I have instead purchased Unity Pro and have been really, really happy with it. The fact that I can't modify the source hasn't hindered me at all.

Don't get me wrong, iTGB works well for the game that I used it for. But I feel like TP over promises and under delivers. I mean, come on, iTGB is on version 1.4 and you still can't run it on your iPhone right out of the box? And how long have they been promising a 1.4.1? Michael mentioned a beta over a month ago. It looks like they are just now documenting all of the bugs.

When the new version of iTorque 2D comes out in 2011 I'll look over it to see if it is worth using for a new project, but it has a lot of ground to cover for me to even consider it.

Sorry for using this thread as a rant, but iTGB really was fun to use once I got around all of the quirks. I would love to use it again, but the way things have been running at TP I don't see that ever happening.

#4 Please stay on topic. This is about physics.

#5 Sorry Michael, I just had to blow off some steam.

On topic: Ronny, you may have already seen this, but when I was researching what iTGB could do with physics, I came across this doc which shows Box2D in TGB.

#6 Yes, there was a thread about it by the author. Both the engines have changed a bit since that, though, particularly the iPhone version. It'll be something to tackle once I really need it :)

#7 So to stay on topic:

When will we finally get physics as advertised on the page back then?
With physics I mean real physics, not the broken, numerically instable, highly unperformant "was fine back then on the pc" thing that TGB has which primarily ensures that any attempts of physical usage will go bogus.

The topic came up 18 months ago already when the physics were discovered to be one of TGBs major performance problems.
As a short term little effort solution the usesPhysics flag was brought in but I think with so many months of time, there were some R&D internal implementation to replace it especially as there were bits and hints that this was actually done already a year ago?

#8 @Marc - You certainly have a point. A physics system built originally for the PC should eventually be replaced with a more optimized alternative. It's still viable and is used for several games in the App store, but I think there is room for improvement.

I'm not sure if the R&D Box2D solution Melv was working on is the right alternative, but I will be digging into that code base soon. We are allowed to use it, so long as it is usable for iTorque.

#9 People are happy with Box2D speeds on iOS devices, and until Chipmunk 5.3.0 it was the fastest solution. No idea how much better the latest Chipmunk is now, but if it's iDevice-specific it's a moot point.