Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


DirectX 11 and PhysX or...?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
6 replies to this topic

#1 noatom   Members   -  Reputation: 769

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 07 November 2012 - 11:32 AM

Soon I'm going to try and start working on my first small 3d game.But I don't know which physics engine to use.

My preference would be PhysX.Yes it has a documentation,I tried using it but I failed.It also has demos,but the demos use dx 9.And trying to understand what is happening in the physx code,and also converting dx 9 to dx 11 stuff it right now too much for me.

So does anyone know a place where to learn PhysX in the Dx 11 environment? Or an alternative to PhysX?

Sponsor:

#2 Zaoshi Kaba   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3658

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 08 November 2012 - 04:37 AM

Alternatives: Havok, Bullet Physics, Newton.

Last time I checked PhysX wasn't rich with tutorials, but physics has nothing to do with your rendering API.

#3 Deortuka   Members   -  Reputation: 493

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 November 2012 - 04:43 AM

PhysX and DirectX11 both function independently from each other. PhysX was frustrating for me to get started with because of the lack of tutorials, but one night of studying the demo code, along with the documentation, and I had it up and running. Afterwards, I was surprised at how easy is was, coding-wise, to integrate into my project. It does, however, require that you know how to research a function and learn what it is intended to do.

#4 mrheisenberg   Members   -  Reputation: 356

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:21 PM

PhysX and DirectX11 both function independently from each other. PhysX was frustrating for me to get started with because of the lack of tutorials, but one night of studying the demo code, along with the documentation, and I had it up and running. Afterwards, I was surprised at how easy is was, coding-wise, to integrate into my project. It does, however, require that you know how to research a function and learn what it is intended to do.


have you tried Bullet?if so,which of the two do you find to be more efficient performance-wise?

#5 Zaoshi Kaba   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3658

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 09 November 2012 - 09:02 AM

Most likely PhysX has better performance, since it runs on hardware when you have nVidia graphics card. But last time I checked Bullet Physics was heading towards that as well as multithreading, so it's hard to say what will happen in the future.

#6 Deortuka   Members   -  Reputation: 493

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 09 November 2012 - 12:58 PM

I decided to go with PhysX instead of Bullet for a few reasons. I really like the fact that it can take advantage of the GPU when it is available, yet still work without it. I have an NVIDIA graphics card so this is a bonus personally. I like its performance versus other physics libraries, according to numerous 3rd party comparisons I have read. PhysX also has a very simple character controller. The documentation is another reason. It is not perfect, but it is there.

#7 Krohm   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2964

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 10 November 2012 - 03:10 AM

Just FYI, Bullet has an OpenCL solver in the works.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS