On 6/19/09, Brian Fisher <br...@hamsterrepublic.com> wrote: > > The quality of chipmunk and box2d is so incredibly good and is built off of > such a depth of experience by the authors that if you want really actually > do want a 2d physics engine (i.e. you're not just looking for stuff moving > and hitting each other, you want stacking, joints, friction, etc) you would > be utterly and completely silly in every way to even consider anything else > > Between pymunk and pybox2d, personally I greatly perfer pybox2d because > box2d is more feature rich, is more stable with bouncy objects and it's > continuous collision detection (actually continuous collision response using > binary search time of collision) makes it much more stable and predictible > particularly with fast moving objects. > > chipmunk was branched from box2d to add a performance feature, and you can > sum up it's difference from box2d as faster and easier to use provided you > are doing just what it does well. > > seriously, in the picture of 2d physics engines, they are both super > wonderful. you want stacking, friction, joints, etc, in 2d they are the only > real options. You want motors and gears and fast moving objects, you > probably want pybox2d. > > If you just want stuff moving and hitting each other though, and you want > to control exactly how things move or behave, or you know you want > unphysics-y stuff to happen a lot, you would probably end up struggling a > lot with any physics engine to get things to work out the way you want them > to.
thanks for this review! i will go for pybox2d then. sounds very promising. On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 6:25 PM, machinim...@gmail.com < > machinim...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> hi, >> >> what 2d physics engine would you recommend for using with pygame? >> >> what happened to the SOC physics project? is it finished? will it be >> included in pygame? >> > >
