dcsimg
A Flash Developer Resource Site

Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: [Physics engine] Box2DforFlash

  1. #1
    Senior Member Sietjp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    709

    [Physics engine] Box2DforFlash

    Box2D for flash is released with sources.
    http://box2dflash.sourceforge.net/
    The demos are awsome !

    And this wonderful one is also getting opensource by the end of the year.
    http://lab.polygonal.de/2007/07/16/updates-2/

    Difficult choice...

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    61
    Not really, considering they are basiclly the same engine.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Boombanguk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    1,194
    Theres also APE and FOAM, for me its whichever one gives me the most options and is easy to setup.

  4. #4
    Senior Member walnoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    754
    For some reason it looks even more advanced than ape/fisix, I like the block stacking,
    somebody must remake this in flash, you'll have a hit:
    http://www.cokeandcode.com/node/920

  5. #5
    Senior Member Boombanguk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    1,194
    The Box2d demo's do look great I must admit, I had a quick look at the source last night, and it looks a little bit more complex to work out then FOAM or APE, but the trade off might be worth it. I think its fair to say that 08 will be the year of Physics engines and 3D for Flash.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Sietjp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by rje
    Not really, considering they are basiclly the same engine.
    Yep but the guy behing polygonal.de seems to be the king of the optimization, I bet his engine will beat all others.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Boombanguk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    1,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Sietjp
    Yep but the guy behing polygonal.de seems to be the king of the optimization, I bet his engine will beat all others.
    but the fastest engine doesn't necessarily make the best games , I think the physics engine that will win out, will be the one that is easiest to get to do cool things.

  8. #8
    Senior Member tonypa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    8,227
    I really like the physics engines, but making real games with any of them will be somewhat complicated. For any engine you may wish to use for game, the problem arises when things dont work. Since you have not written the engine, you have no idea how the engine works and also what kind of bugs it contains. If something does not work in your game, it will be difficult to find out where the problem is: some kind of mistype in your code? engine not handling division with zero correctly? missing assets?

    So, I agree with Boombanguk, its mostly about which engine has less bugs, best documentation, clearer examples and best support.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by tonypa
    I really like the physics engines, but making real games with any of them will be somewhat complicated. For any engine you may wish to use for game, the problem arises when things dont work. Since you have not written the engine, you have no idea how the engine works and also what kind of bugs it contains. If something does not work in your game, it will be difficult to find out where the problem is: some kind of mistype in your code? engine not handling division with zero correctly? missing assets?

    So, I agree with Boombanguk, its mostly about which engine has less bugs, best documentation, clearer examples and best support.
    of course the idea behind a self-contained engine of any sort is that it fits a multi-purpose bill... ideally you re-use it in various scenarios.

    if you consider the console game industry, they use physics packages, ai packages etc over and over again and oftentimes inside their own-brewed, reusable game engine. but flash developers are a different breed (in my experience). most are procedural-happy, "learned ActionScript to facilitate animations or simple game" types... not the sort that can effectively reuse/repurpose self-contained solutions.

    so to wrap up- ideally, you're wrong. realistically, you're right.

    back on topic- this is such a cool and fast engine. it does a lot of sexy stuff. but it does have an awkward interface for flash developers.

  10. #10
    M.D. mr_malee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Shelter
    Posts
    4,140
    just looked at source, looks good, apart form the weird class names, b2This b2That. Nice
    lather yourself up with soap - soap arcade

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Spencerville, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    146
    Wow, I really like the box2d engine, it is really neat! It really intrigued me. I also really like how they did the rag dolls, makes it so you can make nice artwork for your rag doll characters, instead of just stick men. Also, it was neat to see the chain reaction in the second example. Thanks for the post, I look forward to seeing future releases of this!

  12. #12
    Senior Member tonypa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    8,227
    Have not seen this being posted yet, its called "Milenia Ground Engine":
    http://milgra.com/milgro.html
    Written by Milan Toth from Hungary. Suppose to be "simplest dynamics engine" and its available both for AS3 and Java (download includes both).

    Since there is no online demo, I uploaded demo swf here:
    http://img407.imageshack.us/my.php?image=demoqd5.swf
    (click on it to loop through several different shapes)

  13. #13
    Senior Member walnoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    754
    That looks pretty easy indeed,
    looks like it has some bugs too (e.g. squares sticking upside down to platforms), but maybe that's because it's only a demo.

    Encountered this game:
    http://www.nekogames.jp/mt/2007/12/scrxxx_as3_1.html
    Not really physics-game, but makes use of an extremely lot of physics- particle-effects. Looks good imo, and undoable in as2 I think.

  14. #14
    Trainee coder Viza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Down under
    Posts
    513
    Quote Originally Posted by walnoot
    That looks pretty easy indeed,
    looks like it has some bugs too (e.g. squares sticking upside down to platforms), but maybe that's because it's only a demo.
    That's not a bug, but rather just how the engine works - It appears that it's using point vs. line collission checking rather then line vs. line (which would produce more realistic results in certain cases).

    Viza.

  15. #15
    SaphuA SaphuA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,182
    The engine is pretty much the combination of where Tony left us with his tutorials plus IK. That's why it's not very realistic imo. I can imagine it's pretty darned fast though.

  16. #16
    hippie hater Cimmerian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    over there
    Posts
    599
    Instead of engines i would rather enjoy tutorials where they explain how they do what the engine does

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by Cimmerian
    Instead of engines i would rather enjoy tutorials where they explain how they do what the engine does
    i think this is sometimes the case when you track down the author/author's blog. other than self-interest, the major driving force behind my physics engine was creating source that was easy to look through and follow for other developers. i also post physics related tutorials/articles on my blog.

  18. #18
    Student
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    -
    Posts
    4,756
    Quote Originally Posted by newblack
    i think this is sometimes the case when you track down the author/author's blog. other than self-interest, the major driving force behind my physics engine was creating source that was easy to look through and follow for other developers. i also post physics related tutorials/articles on my blog.
    sadly that is the minority,- same for 3d stuff like poly rendering, bump/ normal mapping- most one can find are API´s written from somebody else and in a way one wouldn´t do at first or at all.
    Some advanced tutorials would be nice- but are hard to find

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width

HTML5 Development Center