Chris Hager wrote: > Hey all, > > Josh and I now made some speed tests with both 2D physics engines - > Box2D and Chipmunk - and here are some results. One warning though: The > tests were made with Python, and for Box2D there's a library compiled > with swig, whereas Chipmunk's interface is done with ctypes. This may > change the results to Box2D's advantage, but is justifiable as our > interest right now is which performs better with Python and on the xo > laptop. > > In the end, Box2D performs quite a bit better than Chipmunk, although it > has a ways larger library and many more functions. On a XO Laptop (build > 650), the Box2D engine can easily handle 50 elements - almost twice what > we got from Chipmunk. >
Have you done any profiling to see where the time is going? I did some investigation about how hard it would be to make Chipmunk use 3dnow to get some vectorization; I came to the conclusion that it was definitely possible if it helps any of the hotspots. But I haven't measured to see where the time is going. But as you suggest, my suspicion is that a lot of the time is being lost in the python binding, and a higher-level interface would allow it to perform better. How do the physics models themselves compare? J _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel