Improved physics?
by Apurva Amin · in Torque Game Builder · 08/12/2007 (5:35 am) · 7 replies
Hi everyone,
I've been away from TGB for a while due to a lack of time, but I've got a bit of time at the moment to play around with TorqueX. Now, I don't know if this should be in this forum or in the TX forum, but it's a general TGB physics questions so I assume it goes here. I haven't used TGB since 1.1.3 and I was wondering if the physics system has been "fixed". There have always been problems with the physics, and rendered it impossible to use for anything more than a very simple example. I've noticed tick-based physics has been introduced, but has this fixed all the problems found in the original engine besides the "application out of focus" problem? TGB 1.1.5 still doesn't have "Rigid" as an option from the drop down menu leading me to believe it still hasn't been polished. I ask this because I'm thinking of creating a small project using TorqueX, which uses the same physics engine that TGB uses (I believe). Or, is it possible to use a third party physics engine with TorqueX but still use the TGB editor to create the levels and such?
Thank you
PS: It's nice to see TGB users on the rise!
I've been away from TGB for a while due to a lack of time, but I've got a bit of time at the moment to play around with TorqueX. Now, I don't know if this should be in this forum or in the TX forum, but it's a general TGB physics questions so I assume it goes here. I haven't used TGB since 1.1.3 and I was wondering if the physics system has been "fixed". There have always been problems with the physics, and rendered it impossible to use for anything more than a very simple example. I've noticed tick-based physics has been introduced, but has this fixed all the problems found in the original engine besides the "application out of focus" problem? TGB 1.1.5 still doesn't have "Rigid" as an option from the drop down menu leading me to believe it still hasn't been polished. I ask this because I'm thinking of creating a small project using TorqueX, which uses the same physics engine that TGB uses (I believe). Or, is it possible to use a third party physics engine with TorqueX but still use the TGB editor to create the levels and such?
Thank you
PS: It's nice to see TGB users on the rise!
About the author
#2
However, I would say 'no', the built-in physics system hasn't been polished or significantly improved outside of the tick-based system, which is a HUGE improvement.
08/12/2007 (5:31 pm)
You certainly have a good basis for writing the physics for your game in TGB.However, I would say 'no', the built-in physics system hasn't been polished or significantly improved outside of the tick-based system, which is a HUGE improvement.
#3
08/13/2007 (2:14 pm)
I knocked up a *very* quick demo which consisted of an immovable square, with another square falling on one of it's edges in order to make it rotate. Unfortunately as it rotated, it stopped in some areas then sped up or generally jittered. There may be a solution in the forums for this problem, but it seems to me that the built in physics for TGB still isn't usable in a real game at the moment. Is it possible to use a third party physics engine with TorqueX but still use TBX to design the levels?
#4
I'm not sure if you realize, but TGB and TorqueX/TXB are two fundamentally different products--you asked a TorqueX question in the TGB forum area, where a post in the TorqueX area might be much more beneficial.
08/13/2007 (2:32 pm)
Quote:
I knocked up a *very* quick demo which consisted of an immovable square, with another square falling on one of it's edges in order to make it rotate. Unfortunately as it rotated, it stopped in some areas then sped up or generally jittered. There may be a solution in the forums for this problem, but it seems to me that the built in physics for TGB still isn't usable in a real game at the moment. Is it possible to use a third party physics engine with TorqueX but still use TBX to design the levels?
I'm not sure if you realize, but TGB and TorqueX/TXB are two fundamentally different products--you asked a TorqueX question in the TGB forum area, where a post in the TorqueX area might be much more beneficial.
#5
08/13/2007 (2:47 pm)
I assumed that the physics engine found in TX was the same as that found in TGB. I initially asked the question in the first post but repeated it in my second one. It was more of a sub-question based on the main question about the physics in TGB. 
#6
If you need newton / physx like physics in TGB you will need Pro to implement it. The stock physics system is not up to that and I don't think its even meant to do physical games with "simulation like" usage like nBall, Armadillo and the like.
Those stuff needs highly specific and opted physics code which is quite unsuitable for a generic game engine.
08/14/2007 (12:35 am)
TX and TGB are not the same, the only thing they partially share is the editor ...If you need newton / physx like physics in TGB you will need Pro to implement it. The stock physics system is not up to that and I don't think its even meant to do physical games with "simulation like" usage like nBall, Armadillo and the like.
Those stuff needs highly specific and opted physics code which is quite unsuitable for a generic game engine.
#7
TX and TGB may be different, but TX has physics and collisions built in just like TGB. My point was that surely they both use the same collision detection method and reaction method otherwise if one is better than the other, then surely that should be implemented in both versions. Different products they may be, but I can't imagine them having radically different underlying physics engines, hence why I thought the physics question here would be fine for both products.
Of course, I may be wrong and all corrections welcome :)
Thanks for the replies.
08/14/2007 (7:36 am)
I can understand the difficulty of implementing an "all round" physics engine in a generic game engine. However, even with the basic physics example I gave above it seemed like it can't realistically handle *any* rigid body physics. But, as I say, that may not be the engines fault and probably mine as it was a very quick knock up of a demo so I'll reserve judgement on that aspect.TX and TGB may be different, but TX has physics and collisions built in just like TGB. My point was that surely they both use the same collision detection method and reaction method otherwise if one is better than the other, then surely that should be implemented in both versions. Different products they may be, but I can't imagine them having radically different underlying physics engines, hence why I thought the physics question here would be fine for both products.
Of course, I may be wrong and all corrections welcome :)
Thanks for the replies.
Torque Owner DragonSix