I started a page on the wiki for comparing the engines:
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Physic_Engines
A major difference seems to be that box2d is more mature and
feature-rich, but it's library has 1.7 mb, whereas Chipmunk provides
stable and fast, basic physics within 48kb for the library.
Hey,
I've just finished making a xo bundle out of the physics thingy :) It's
a selection of the 3 last demos (6, 7 and 8). With not too many objects,
it's quite fun to play with :) Especially the drawing and behaviour of
polygons is always again fascinating. The activity (and project) is now
Chris Hager wrote:
Hey all.
Recently I did some research on 2D (SDL) physic engines, and found that
one of the most popular (called Chipmunk) with python bindings (pymunk)
recently got an update. I had a look into it, and am totally amazed :)
The chipmunk engine is easy, stable, fast,
Chris, this is most excellent!
I have a demo activity written in C/C++ that uses the same underlying
engine, box2d, and SDL for drawing. I wanted to port it to python, so
I spent several hours over the past week trying to use SWIG to make
some python bindings for box2d - with minimal
Hey.
Chris Ball wrote:
Hi,
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Pymunx
Wow, how awesome! Do you have an XO to test on? Have you thought about
releasing a standalone .xo, or throwing these into Pippy? What are the
dependencies and disk usage like for the underlying chipmunk library
Yeah, I
Hey all.
Recently I did some research on 2D (SDL) physic engines, and found that
one of the most popular (called Chipmunk) with python bindings (pymunk)
recently got an update. I had a look into it, and am totally amazed :)
The chipmunk engine is easy, stable, fast, fun, open-source -- and now
Hi,
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Pymunx
Wow, how awesome! Do you have an XO to test on? Have you thought about
releasing a standalone .xo, or throwing these into Pippy? What are the
dependencies and disk usage like for the underlying chipmunk library?
Thanks,
- Chris.
--
Chris Ball
