• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Zouflain

Compiled vs Scripted Physics Calculations

7 posts in this topic

Benchmarking will inevitably be required, I'm aware, but I was curious what other's experiences with performance comparisons between physics calculations that are performed in compiled (C++) languages vs those that run entirely in a virtual machine (namely LUA). Do the benefits of speed in C++ outweigh the accessibility and ease of modification in Lua? And what, in your experience, is to be expected from this difference of speed? I have [i]always[/i] done my physics in C++, but I realize now that it may well be a wise decision to move those calculations into the Lua engine. It would also reduce the (albeit minor) overhead of communication between C++ based collider objects and Lua based game logic objects.

Naturally speed will depend on coding efficiency, but I'm curious as to what others have experienced. Thank you for any input.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What kind of "physics calculations" are you talking about?

A single bouncing ball for pong physics is VERY different from a ragdoll simulation.

The physics for a few hardcoded object falling is different from a physics simulation handling thousands of complex meshes with joints and springs and constraints. Edited by frob
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An alternative might be to consider using [url="http://runtimecompiledcplusplus.blogspot.com/"]Runtime Compiled C++[/url], which would also allow you to have your game objects in C++ as well as the physics.

If your game doesn't require significant computation resources, then moving completely to a scripting language might be another approach. There's plenty of information out there on performance of scripts vs compiled C++, though it does depend on your platform. For example consoles cannot JIT compile due to data execution prevention for security purposes. Edited by dougbinks
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='frob' timestamp='1351702440' post='4995873']
What kind of "physics calculations" are you talking about?

A single bouncing ball for pong physics is VERY different from a ragdoll simulation.

The physics for a few hardcoded object falling is different from a physics simulation handling thousands of complex meshes with joints and springs and constraints.
[/quote]Fair enough. I tried to keep my first post information light to stay on topic, but I understand how you would need more than I gave. Here's the dump:

I'm looking to implement something scalable that can be used as the basis for the physics engine of an FPS game - however, as I tend to recycle a lot of code from game to game, I imagine that a successful implementation will carry over to other games. For simplicity, I'm simulating only rigid bodies (water and fabric would be calculated separately) from about the size of a bullet to a car. The number of objects for this project is expected to be quite large, but for simplicity will rely mostly on rectangular prisms rather than complex meshes. I'm most familiar with verlet based physics (and there's an awesome article on that [url="http://www.gamedev.net/page/resources/_/technical/math-and-physics/a-verlet-based-approach-for-2d-game-physics-r2714"]here on GD[/url] for anyone interested - extensions to 3D are not difficult) and would be using them in this simulation. The target platform for all of my development is linux, however, porting to Windows and Mac is always desirable.

The question, with respect to this game and future projects, is what experiences individuals have had running a full physics simulation in a scripted language (either Lua, Python or similar) and whether they would advise keeping the actual simulation compiled in C++ or scripted. I ask because I have been migrating more and more code into scripted languages and over the course of several discussions have come to realize that I am likely [i]still[/i] under-utilizing scripts.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As others have said, it depends on your physics, so we can't know for sure.
The "scientific" approach would be to code as much as you can in LUA, profile it, and, if necessary move the slow code to C++. That is, the basic building blocks (matrix arithemtic, triangulation, collision detection,...) of it. Which ammounts to creating a robust, small physics library in C/C++ with lua bindings.

Or maybe that already exists.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Zouflain' timestamp='1351706305' post='4995899']
The question, with respect to this game and future projects, is what experiences individuals have had running a full physics simulation in a scripted language (either Lua, Python or similar) and whether they would advise keeping the actual simulation compiled in C++ or scripted. I ask because I have been migrating more and more code into scripted languages and over the course of several discussions have come to realize that I am likely [i]still[/i] under-utilizing scripts.
[/quote]

As a rule of thumb: use scripting languages to control the simulation, not to run it. When it comes to physics you can for example use lua to add forces, enable/disable kinematics, add new objects, etc.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd echo what Doug wrote.

My inclination is (based on experience) - scripted languages are useful when you need to ship an application whose behaviour must be modifiable by the user (beyond just being data driven). However, in every other area, they offer only marginal benefit at best given tools available with compiled languages (C/C++) - dlls, variable modification in the debugger, edit & continue. E&C in particular is incredibly useful (having worked on physics engines, AI and more).

On another topic - I would strongly advise against trying to use verlet integration and particles for 3D rigid body physics. In my experience, it ends up being much more complicated than impulse based methods (for which there's plenty of reference/info), slower and less well behaved. It seems way easier at first - but refining it involves hacks layered upon hacks... (I have some info, admittedly old now, that might be useful [url="http://www.rowlhouse.co.uk/main.html"]here[/url])
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0